Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare an interest—not a pecuniary one—as honorary parliamentary adviser over many years to the Royal British Legion.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what further consideration they are giving to the problems and needs of veterans of the 1991 Gulf Conflict with still undiagnosed illnesses.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government remain determined to address the concerns of those Gulf veterans who are ill. Medical assessments are available from the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme. The Defence Medical Services and NHS deliver medical treatment. Financial support is available when appropriate through pensions and the Veterans' Agency Welfare Service provides help for war pensioners. We remain committed to funding relevant scientific research to shape the Government's approach to this important and complex issue.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Does he recall the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, being told in this House two years ago that we must wait until 2003 for the report on Porton Down's research on animals to test the safety or otherwise of the vaccines our troops were given 14 years ago? Where is its report, and how can that research possibly replicate the immunisation regime adopted for our troops when the MoD does not know who had what vaccines and when?
	With thousands of veterans in broken health, many terminally ill, and for all the reasons so admirably set out by the Royal British Legion, is not the best course now to concede a public inquiry; act more generously to veterans and dependants; and cut the spiralling costs of the MoD's litigation against them over war pension appeals?

Lord Bach: My Lords, of course I recall the Question asked by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, some time ago. My noble friend knows that the research at Porton Down is continuing; he knows that it is a very complex research programme; and he knows that the preliminary results were announced in April for the first three months of the study. They were not only announced but published too. These show no apparent adverse health consequences three months after the administration of the vaccine and/or bromide. The whole programme is due to complete by the end of this year, 2003. So in 2004 the results of that particular part of the research—which is not the only research being carried out in this field; the Government are spending up to £8.5 million on it—will be known.

Lord Bramall: My Lords, in the absence of the final report—and if the Minister can bear another question from me—can he at least confirm that Gulf War veterans given that cocktail of inoculations have had a higher incidence of neurological illness than any comparable group outside? Should that not be taken into account when awarding attributable pensions?

Lord Bach: My Lords, it is a pleasure always to have a question from the noble and gallant Lord—sometimes it is more pleasurable than at other times—and I am delighted to attempt to answer him. The figures are difficult and complex. There is no doubt that there are veterans of the Gulf War who are ill. We say that there is absolutely no medical evidence that there is anything called "Gulf War syndrome". All the medical evidence is absolutely against that at this stage. But the point of the research is to determine whether that is actually so.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an estimate of the number of surviving veterans with these illnesses and what progress is being made in finding a cure and treatment?

Lord Bach: My Lords, it is difficult to say how many veterans of the Gulf War have illnesses. But I can tell the noble Lord that in the period between April 1991 and June 2003, 600 Gulf veterans had died; but from a comparable group 613 had died. So there was no difference in the overall death rate between Gulf veterans and the control sample. So far as suicide is concerned—a matter which has been raised in the House before—110 Gulf veterans had, alas, committed suicide compared to 103 from the comparable control group. The next update on those figures will be early next year.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I ask my question as patron of the Gulf Veterans' Association. It is my understanding that members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces, both territorials and regulars, who are currently serving in the Gulf are now getting in touch with the Gulf Veterans' Association because they have been having vaccines, in bulk, as happened during the first Gulf War. Can the Minister either confirm that this is not the case or explain why, unlike members of the American Home Guard who have been having their vaccinations over a period of 18 months, we have not been doing the same in this country?

Lord Bach: My Lords, regular personnel and volunteer reserve personnel at a high-readiness state are routinely offered vaccination over a period of time. Any decision to vaccinate personnel over a shorter period of time than normal is undertaken only after a risk assessment has been conducted and specialist advice sought. The decision to vaccinate over the reduced time period is balanced—and it is an important balance—against the risk of contracting a disease or diseases during deployment. In such circumstances full account is taken of any other treatment or medication that an individual may be receiving at the time. Vaccinations are administered only after the individual is found fit and suitable to receive them and—this again is important—has given his or her informed consent.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is it not a fact that motor neurone disease is far more prevalent among Gulf War veterans than among other people of a similar age group? Is it not a fact that it has been found also among American Gulf War veterans? Is it not time that we sorted out this business, as the Americans have done?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not in a position to say whether there are more cases of motor neurone disease among Gulf War veterans than among other people. I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I apologise for the third intervention from the Cross Benches. Is the Minister aware that it is my noble and gallant friend's 80th birthday? May I on behalf of the Cross Benches, if not the whole House, offer him our congratulations?

Noble Lords: Hear! Hear!

Lord Bach: My Lords, I confess that I was not aware of it. I am delighted that I have been told and the House has been told. I, too, offer him felicitations.

Foreign Office Travel Advice

Lord Hurd of Westwell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will review the system by which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office issues advice to British citizens planning to travel abroad.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes. We are already doing so. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary announced a review of the basis of FCO travel advice in a Written Statement to Parliament on 10th December. We have done a great deal in recent years to ensure that our travel advice is as accurate and as timely as possible. The review will look again at how we can best ensure that it enables its users to make informed and responsible decisions about risks overseas.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and, indeed, for the review which has been announced. The full terms of reference are in Hansard. As she knows, this is an extraordinarily difficult balance: Foreign Office Ministers must weigh up the particular danger at particular times in particular places against the negative effect which negative travel advice has. Will she confirm that this can include not only tourism, although that is important enough, but trade missions, which lose their grant and are cancelled, and professional conferences, which collapse? It could lead to the withering away of the whole range of our contacts, as British people, with overseas countries, which are so important and which, of course, are precisely what the terrorists want to destroy. Would it not be possible to set out the facts, as plainly and fully as intelligence considerations allow, but then in general leave grown-up people to make up their own mind in the light of those facts on whether to maintain their plans?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I know how difficult this is, for the very good reason that I am both the consular Minister and the Minister for counter-terrorism. So I have in my portfolio both the aspects to which the noble Lord has quite rightly drawn our attention. Of course, any travel advice about not going to particular countries disrupts tourism and commercial relationships. As the noble Lord has rightly pointed out, in many respects it can be argued that it precisely meets the terrorists' objective by causing the very disruption they seek.
	The noble Lord's point about simply setting out the facts and leaving people to draw their own conclusions is precisely the sort of area on which the review needs to focus a good deal of its attention. Many people want advice about whether they should or should not travel. Should they undertake non-essential travel? Is the Foreign Office talking about particular cities or towns? We need to have as much factual advice as possible. The question of judgment in the review will then involve the very question that the noble Lord has raised about advice. If I may say so, I hope that he contributes—I saw his excellent article on this very point, which is most important in this discussion.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there will be a great deal of support for the thrust of the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd? Does she agree that this new phenomenon of suicidal international terrorism is likely to be a long haul? Does she also agree that, given our considerable experience over the decades of terrorism in Ulster, we are in a position to give a lead in seeing these matters in proportion and not giving the terrorists the satisfaction of disrupting disproportionately our foreign travel, whether it is for business purposes or tourism?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with that point but I also put to your Lordships the very important point that the first responsibility of any government has to be the security of their citizens. This is an enormously difficult issue. When I was in Turkey, very shortly after the appalling bomb in Istanbul, the point that noble Lords have made was put to me by the Turks themselves. They said that the advice might do the terrorists' job for them. But I also had to make it clear that it is the Government's responsibility not just to lay out the facts but to decide about the advice. One of the points in the terms of reference of the current review is precisely this balance: what should be the balance in our travel advice between information, warning and advice? That is the nub of the issue, and we would very much welcome the views of your Lordships.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, personally, I find the current level of Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice extremely good, particularly its website, which I strongly recommend to your Lordships. However, does the noble Baroness recall that after the Bali atrocity more than a year ago, the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee produced its own report on questions of travel advice and strongly recommended that there should be a more sensitively graded system of warnings, steering between alarmism at the one extreme and complacency at the other? Has that idea been adopted and is it enfolded in the current level of advice?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, travel advice is a dynamic process—it is changing all the time and the approach to it is changing all the time. This is a major review to look again at whether we need to focus in a different way. The short answer to the noble Lord's point is yes. The travel advice regarding Turkey at the time of the terrorist outrage on our Consulate-General in Istanbul was already more nuanced than, for example, the travel advice of the United States. Its advice was aimed at the whole of Turkey; ours very specifically pointed out that the dangers were very much greater in big cities and towns. We have tried to pick up the very helpful points that came out of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee report and to be more sensitive in the way that we nuance it.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, is there not a difficulty in not giving specific advice that tourists should not visit particular places because of the problem of travel insurance? Will my noble friend confirm that travel companies will allow people to change the date or get a refund if there is clear advice that people should not travel, but in the absence of that advice, there might be insurance problems?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, that is true, but I do not think that that consideration should determine what the travel advice is. The travel advice has to be accurate; 60 million trips are made overseas from this country every year. I would advise everybody to look at the Foreign Office's excellent "Know Before You Go" campaign which focuses on what I would describe as common sense issues, such as having proper travel insurance, having the right inoculations and knowing something about the customs of the country to which one is travelling. There is advice specific to backpackers and to skiers. People should consider those basic points—and the point about insurance is important—very carefully before they travel.

Legislative Process: Public Involvement

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to inform and involve the public better in the legislative process.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government are keen to involve the public in the legislative process and are doing so through consultation on legislative proposals and through publication of more Bills in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for her Answer. I should probably declare an interest, as founder and president of the Citizenship Foundation, which is pre-eminently preoccupied with matters of citizen information.
	In the spirit of Christmas and of fairness, I accept that we are all in the same boat on the issue of citizen competence. Whichever yardstick one uses—whether anecdote, polling data or electoral turnout figures—it is common ground that the public have never felt so uninformed as they do today. My question is this: if the public were much better informed and involved, would not the sheer volume and complexity of law-making defeat the purpose of information and consultation, given that we are now legislating at the rate of 12,500 pages of new law a year—that is two, three and four times the amount generated by comparable countries? Does not this lead to information overload, suffocating bureaucracy and, above all, a sense of public resentment? What will the Government do to address this overarching problem in 2004?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for his Question. He made some very similar points in our debate on the Queen's Speech, which I took on board.
	The noble Lord has raised the issue with respect to public information and the volume and complexity of our legislation. There are two separate issues here: first, the content of the legislation and what we are trying to do with it, and, secondly, how we talk about it, when we sit, and the access that the public have to both Houses of Parliament. While there is a volume and degree of complexity in our law-making, the public are quite able to understand when there are major policy issues at stake, if we take the trouble to explain them. There is a responsibility not only on us as a Government but on others involved in the process to be clear about what we are trying to do through legislation. There is also an issue relating to the kind of language that we use in Parliament, which we need to take on board.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, it is a challenge to explain the process. For example, the public surely will not understand, because many noble Lords do not understand, why the Government are so eager to allow pre-legislative scrutiny for Bills such as the civil partnership Bill, but not for a Bill that will fundamentally change our constitution and, in particular, our administration of justice.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the decisions on pre-legislative scrutiny are taken by considering a range of different factors, including urgency, how ready a Bill is for publication and the overall needs of the programme. This Government should be congratulated on bringing Bills forward for pre-legislative scrutiny.

Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the development of e-government needs to be paralleled by a development of e-democracy? Should we not therefore have appropriate electronic consultation at the pre-legislative stage of all draft Bills—which should perhaps include most Bills? Is that not particularly relevant when we are dealing with the rather opaque situation of devolution, when primary legislation for Wales is drafted not always with the full interests of Wales or the National Assembly at heart?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. We need to use all the facilities available to us, which is why there is an e-envoy and why all Bills and their Explanatory Notes, and draft Bills, are published on the Parliament website. That is why we are considering ways in which committees can engage more through that process.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I wonder how my noble friend would answer a question that might be asked of her by a member of the general public. Why do some Members of this House insist on resisting the idea that the House of Commons has primacy over the House of Lords? That was indicated by the fact that a majority of this House repeatedly voted against and ultimately destroyed Clauses 41 and 42 of the Criminal Justice Bill, on jury trial, despite the fact that the House of Commons on three separate occasions with increasing majorities indicated that it wanted to keep those clauses in the Bill. The Commons wanted it and we said, "No". I wonder how my noble friend would seek to explain to a member of the general public what is right about that.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend raises a very important point, which is at the heart of the relationship between the two Houses. It is important that we recognise and respect the fact that the other place is the elected Chamber. We do that through a number of conventions. Of course, this House has the right to ask the other place to think again. However, I agree with my noble friend that there have been times when the other place has made its views absolutely clear on a number of occasions and when this House has time and time again gone back to the other place.
	The relationship between the two Houses will evolve over time. Looking back at those examples, I am sure that we will be part of that process.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister take care that this suggestion does not lead to inflicting unnecessary pain on the public? Before the public are further involved in our processes, would it not be just as well if those processes were really tidied up, especially down the other end of the corridor?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not entirely certain which particular suggestion the noble Lord makes reference to. There is an issue with respect to consolidation of legislation, which is being considered; but the wider point of involving the public is one that is very well taken by the Government.

Baroness Strange: My Lords—

Lord Grocott: My Lords, we have had 24 minutes. We have only six minutes left for the next Question.

Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the light of recent Appeal Court judgments, they will reconsider the position of individuals who have mistakenly been labelled as having Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, following the judgment in Sally Clarke's appeal case, the Attorney-General has established a working group to consider whether any cases in which Dr Williams has given significant evidence require a more in-depth review. We await the result of the group's considerations. We have not yet seen the written judgment in Angela Canning's appeal case. Once it is given, which we understand will not now occur until the new year, we shall study it carefully.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that, apart from the cases in which children are murdered, when the mother usually goes to court and is either found guilty or not guilty, there are many thousands of women who have been accused of or labelled as having Munchausen syndrome by proxy, without any clinical or legal assessment? They have no recourse to the courts and, each time they protest, they are told that they are in denial and that it is a sign of having Munchausen syndrome by proxy. This is an equivalent of the stigma of witchcraft in the Middle Ages; there is no trial, and one is guilty until one can prove that one is not guilty, and one has no way in which to prove that one is not guilty. What recourse do those people have to clearing their names? How do they get free of that awful stigma?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Appeal Court judgments were on cases in which the individuals were charged with murder, and were not linked in any way with Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
	In my previous Answer to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who I know feels very passionately about this issue, I described the approach that we have taken as a multi-agency approach to ensure that professionals from different sectors of our agencies are involved in determining whether there is anything to be investigated, and those matters should not be investigated lightly.
	In the light of recent events, the issue of record-keeping is prominent in all our minds. I remind noble Lords that I have said on previous occasions that it is important that record-keeping is understood to be a vital component in child protection, including ensuring that when groundless accusations are made, that too is recorded. That is the best defence for families and children.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, whatever is done, the protection of children is always pre-eminent? Given the medical differences of opinion, what are the Government doing to encourage more medical research into the issue? I am sure that the Minister is aware of the working party chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, which is drawing up guidelines for professionals to follow in the event of a cot death. Will she tell us when that report is likely to be published and whether it will receive input from the parents to whom the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has referred?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness that child protection must be the pre-eminent factor in all these cases. If we could create a perfect system, we would. On the question of medical research, it is important that we consider all the issues and, in the case of Appeal Court cases, sudden infant death syndrome is an issue and area in which we clearly have work to do.
	I am unable to give the detail on the working group chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, but I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and put a copy in the Library.

Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that there are only very limited routes of appeal for families who have been split apart by the family courts on the grounds of Munchausen syndrome by proxy? Should there not be better and genuine appeal mechanisms, bearing in mind the closed nature of the family courts and the fact that the threshold of proof that applies in them is lower than that which applies in the criminal courts?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I know that the noble Earl feels very strongly about the issue of privacy within the family courts. However, confidentiality is the other side of that coin. In seeking to look at how the family courts operate, we need to be clear that we protect in the best possible sense the interests of all those involved. I know that the noble Earl is very interested in the mechanisms. I can say to noble Lords that we will examine those issues very carefully. However, I am reluctant to be drawn while issues are being investigated and while we are awaiting the results of the cases before the Court of Appeal.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Munchausen syndrome by proxy does exist—many cases have been proven as such—and that it would be a pity to suggest that it does not?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the label which we prefer to use is fabricated or induced illness, instances of which have indeed been proven to the satisfaction of all professionals. It is a very difficult matter to prove. The latest guidance produced by the Department of Health—which, as I said, now comes under the jurisdiction of my department in this regard—is therefore critical in ensuring that professionals work together when someone is suspected of fabricating or inducing an illness in a child which may lead to irreparable harm to that child.

Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill [HL]

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to place under the authority of Parliament executive powers exercisable by Ministers of the Crown by virtue of the Royal prerogative to make provision relating to the appointment and conduct of and general duties relating to civil servants and special advisers, to establish a procedure for the making of certain public appointments and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Donoughue.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Gender Recognition Bill [HL]

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The Gender Recognition Bill is a part of the Government's commitment to reforming the constitution so that it better meets the needs of all people. It also reflects our commitment to social inclusion. It is essential that no one is left behind as we create the conditions for a credible and effective modern democracy. There is a strong tradition of legislation in this country that has sought to respond to the concerns and needs of minority groups, whether these be ethnic minorities, people who are disabled, or now, with this Bill, transsexual people. I believe that this is a reformist tradition of which we can be proud.
	Our commitment to further developing a culture of rights in this country is exemplified by the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Gender Recognition Bill continues the process of "bringing rights home". The Bill provides transsexual people with the opportunity to gain the rights and responsibilities appropriate to the gender in which they are now living. Transsexual people, at present, live in a state of limbo. Their birth gender determines their legal status, even though they may have lived fully in the opposite gender for many years.
	The absence of legal recognition is no mere technicality. For example, a person who is now living as a woman may take out motor insurance in her new name. That would seem the natural thing to do. If, however, she has an accident, she risks prosecution for driving without insurance and for fraud, as her legal status is still determined by her gender at birth. She is therefore faced with little choice but to take out insurance under her previous name, in the gender to which she no longer feels she belongs. She then has to explain, every time she has to produce her insurance documents, why there is a discrepancy between those documents and the reality of how she presents to the world.
	These are extremely personal matters. Yet transsexual people, because of the disjuncture between their birth gender and the gender in which they are now living, have to describe their gender history to complete strangers. The Gender Recognition Bill will ensure that this intensely private matter can remain private.
	The Bill is the product of much thought and consultation with stakeholders over many years. The Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People, set up in 1999, published its report in April 2000, and that work led to the publication of a draft Bill on 11th July 2002.
	The Gender Recognition Bill has also been influenced by the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The court, in interpreting the European convention, now a part of UK law, has stated that a system for recognising transsexual people in their acquired gender must exist and that transsexual people must be granted their rights under Article 8, the right to respect for private life, and Article 12, the right to marry.
	The Law Lords, in the case of Bellinger, concurred with the view that transsexual people ought to have a means of marrying in their acquired gender. Their Lordships stated that transsexual people do not have that right at present and legislation will be required to ensure that they do.
	The draft Bill has been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Joint Committee received submissions from a wide range of sources, and I am grateful to the committee for its report. The Government have now responded to this report and copies are available in the Library. We have not accepted all the recommendations of the Joint Committee. However, I am glad to note that the Joint Committee has welcomed, as the report puts it,
	"the Government's determination to deal with the very difficult problems faced by people in this field".
	The Gender Recognition Bill proposes to provide legal recognition in the acquired gender to those transsexual people who have taken decisive steps to live fully and permanently in that gender. The effect of legal recognition will be that a transsexual person gains the rights, and responsibilities, appropriate to the acquired gender. For example, a person will be able to marry in the acquired gender; a person's entitlement to benefits and pension will be determined according to the acquired gender; and a new birth certificate will be issued to those with UK birth register entries. In order to ensure that the privacy of transsexual people is protected, the Bill will ensure that a new birth certificate does not reveal that a person has changed gender.
	The first section of the Bill sets out the criteria for application and the process by which applications will be determined. The Bill proposes the establishment of a gender recognition panel to determine all applications. The panels will consist of legally and medically qualified members. Schedule 1 sets out some of the detail of the proposed practice and procedure of these panels. My department has been consulting extensively on this process. Our aim is to create a process that meets the needs of those who will be entering the process, transsexual people, and those who will be providing evidence as a part of the process, medical professionals.
	An application for recognition in the acquired gender will be considered according to four criteria. The person must have or have had a gender dysphoria, the recognised medical condition that drives a transsexual person to live in the opposite gender; must have lived in the acquired gender throughout the preceding two years; must intend to continue to do so until death; and must comply with the evidence requirements under Clause 3. The criteria are designed to establish whether a person has taken decisive steps to live fully and permanently in their acquired gender. That must be the test for legal recognition in the acquired gender, not whether the person's physiology fully conforms to the acquired gender, nor whether the person "looks the part".
	The Bill must also account for the situation of transsexual people who are in an existing marriage. Such marriages will not be able to continue. The Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that existing marriages should not have to end. However, there is an issue of principle at stake here. Marriage is an institution for opposite-sex couples. After recognition in the acquired gender is attained, if existing marriages could continue, these would become marriages between same-sex couples. The Government are not going to change the fundamental nature of the institution of marriage in this way.
	What the Bill provides, however, is a simple mechanism whereby an individual who has decided to seek recognition can dissolve his or her existing marriage. We are concerned to leave the individual in control of this process and to tackle the practical difficulties that ending an existing marriage may create. If a married individual applies and is successful in their application, they will receive an interim gender recognition certificate. This certificate will provide the basis for a new ground for dissolution of the marriage, provided in Schedule 2. On dissolving the marriage, the court will substitute a full gender recognition certificate for the interim certificate.
	In that way, the Bill proposes to avoid the situation where a married applicant first has to end his or her marriage and only then learns whether or not his or her application meets the criteria. The process provided in the Bill eliminates the potential for that vulnerability and allows a person to plan his or her affairs. When dissolving the marriage, the court will also be able to deal with practical matters, such as, for example, the sharing of pensions or making provision for children of the family.
	The Government will also be bringing forward legislation on same-sex civil partnership in this Session. If that legislation is enacted, a couple who have to end their marriage to allow one party to gain recognition in the acquired gender will be able to enter into a civil partnership. The couple will be able to acquire again a legal status for their relationship, with legal rights and responsibilities. As the civil partnership legislation is developed, the Government will seek to minimise the time between the marriage ending and the civil partnership commencing. We expect to minimise it to one day.
	The second section of the Bill outlines the consequences of the issue of a gender recognition certificate. Once a certificate has been granted, a person's gender becomes in law the acquired gender. The Bill proposes to provide transsexual people with access to the rights and responsibilities appropriate to their acquired gender. That change of gender is, however, prospective only. The Bill does not rewrite history.
	Clause 10 and Schedule 3 are critical. Following a successful application for recognition, the panel will issue a certificate. The Registrar General will then create a new record in relation to the individual in the gender recognition register. A birth certificate in the new name and gender recorded on the gender recognition certificate can then be issued from the new record. The link between that new birth certificate and the original birth certificate will be confidential.
	There has been some speculation in the media over the past few days on the implications of the Bill for sport. Frankly, I have been puzzled by some of what has been said. Let me make it clear that it will not be possible for a man simply to declare that he is of the opposite gender and then compete in women's competitions. A person seeking recognition in the acquired gender will have to apply to the panel, and a gender recognition certificate would be issued only if the panel were satisfied that all the criteria were met.
	Further, and perhaps even more fundamentally, the Bill does not bring transsexual people into existence. Sporting bodies already deal with the issues raised by the participation of transsexual people. As part of the process of developing the Bill, more than 300 sporting bodies were consulted. Nothing in the Bill forces sporting bodies to allow transsexual people to compete in their acquired gender. In fact, the Bill allows sporting bodies the flexibility to deal with the issue in the way each believes most appropriate to its own circumstances. Sporting bodies already do that.
	Other countries already have systems for recognising a change of gender, and their sporting bodies have been doing that, too. There may well be considerations of safety or competitive parity, and guidance will be published to enable sporting bodies to make informed choices about how best to treat transsexual people within the context of their sport.
	Finally, Clause 21 prohibits the disclosure of information about a person's application for gender recognition or about a successful applicant's gender history. That information is to be protected whenever it has been acquired in an official capacity. The prohibition on disclosure is essential as the positive effect of allowing a person to change gender in law would be greatly diminished if, at the same time, there were to be widespread and indiscriminate access to the fact that the person used to be of another gender.
	The Government do not accept that all people need to know whether a person who has recognition in the acquired gender used to be of another gender. The relevance of that intensely personal fact is questionable, and the distress or embarrassment that a transsexual person may suffer at its disclosure is considerable. However, there will of course be instances when the previous identity of an individual is relevant. Clause 21 therefore sets out the limited circumstances in which disclosure is permissible, such as for the purposes of prevention or detection of crime.
	I present to the House a Bill that seeks to provide transsexual people with the opportunity to enjoy the rights and responsibilities appropriate to their acquired gender and to leave behind the vulnerable position which they presently have to endure. The Bill provides a long-ignored minority with social justice, legal rights and a place in our evolving democracy. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Filkin.)

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, it gives me pleasure to make it clear straight away that in principle—I stress "in principle"—we on these Benches are supportive of the Bill. We believe it is right to confront the issues that it raises, so that changes can be made in the law to bring about great improvements in the lives of Britain's 5,000 transsexuals.
	I am, however, concerned that the Government may be attempting to play down the Bill and to give it a low profile. Why did the Government choose to exclude it from the gracious Speech, despite the fact that it was clearly part of the immediate legislative agenda? The day before State Opening, I was asked for diary availability for Second Reading before Christmas Recess, yet the following day there was no mention of it in the gracious Speech. What was the reason for that? I advise the Minister that there is nothing to hide in the Bill, which if we get it right—I emphasise that—can bring great comfort to a section of society that has been so badly affected by living, hitherto, in limbo.
	It is to the great credit of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that it has considered with care a number of key aspects of the Bill in draft form, as set out in its 19th report of the 2002–03 Session. The Bill raises a number of serious issues and begs a number of important questions and concerns that remain to be answered by the Government. Probably one of the most difficult issues to resolve is the potential effect on a marriage and the children of a marriage given that, as the Bill is currently drafted, where a person is married and then changes his or her gender, that change will not be fully recognised as long as that person continues to be married. The simple notion of introducing legislation to insist, in certain circumstances, on divorce or annulment of a marriage goes very much against the grain. That said, we on these Benches have never supported the legalisation of same-sex marriages.
	The Bill makes provision for an interim certificate to be issued while the person is still married. What happens if the individual wants to stay married? Will the interim certificate expire after a time? Will it be renewable? I note that the Joint Committee on Human Rights states in its report that it is,
	"troubled by the submissions which draw attention to the distress caused to parties to a marriage and their children, who still form part of a close and loving family group, by the idea that the marriage would have to be annulled or dissolved before the applicant's change of gender could be legally recognised".
	Will the civil partnerships Bill contain provisions similar to the French Pacte Civil de Solidarite, which enables two people to register their union and then, three years later, enjoy the statutory rights afforded by that registration? I note that the Minister said today that he was hopeful that there would be just one day between divorce or annulment and the ability to enter into a civil partnership arrangement, but that still raises the question of what happens during that day. That is an important question of principle that we need to consider further.
	Can the Minister throw a more focused light on the Government's intentions with regard to the timetabling for bringing the Bill into force, and how that relates to the timing of measures introduced in the civil partnerships Bill? I note that he said that he was keen for that Bill to be brought into law this Session. At the same time, however, I know that the usual channels have had some difficulty agreeing whether that Bill should have pre-legislative scrutiny. If it did, that could considerably delay its introduction. If there is a significant delay before that Bill, that will clearly have implications for those couples forced to divorce to permit one of the pair to obtain a full gender recognition certificate.
	There are also fundamental issues of human rights in the Bill, affecting individuals who have not themselves undergone a change of gender but may have their rights compromised by a person who has changed gender. For example, it will be possible for an individual to change their gender without undergoing an operation for a sex change. That person will then be quite within his or her rights, as we understand it, to, for example, share a prison cell, nurses' quarters or sports changing facilities with others of their chosen gender. Even though there is treatment to modify sexual characteristics, should we not consider the feelings of those with whom that person shares very private areas? Whose human rights take precedence? How does one judge in individual circumstances what is balanced and proportionate? It is very difficult for all concerned.
	I know that my noble friend Lord Moynihan will be focusing upon the impact that these measures will have on participants in sports. In response to the Minister's comments on sport, I say straight away that we fundamentally reject his arguments. I know that my noble friend will be able fully to illustrate why. The potential outcomes have not been thought through in the Bill.
	There are numerous additional points to which we on these Benches would like a response from the Minister. For example, can he set out to the House, for the sake of clarity, the new arrangement for birth certificates? Precisely what documents will be kept in the transsexual register? And what will appear in the register of births that is open to the public? How will an individual entitled to track down the original certificate—for example, a police officer conducting a criminal investigation—be prompted to look in the transsexual persons' register if they have no suspicion that the person concerned is a transsexual?
	Clause 21 makes it an offence for a person who has acquired protected information under the measure in an official capacity to disclose that information to any other person. However, Clause 21(4) provides certain exemptions to that offence. Those provisions are by no means clearly drawn. In particular, it is not an offence for a person to disclose protected information if, under Clause 21(4)(f),
	"the disclosure is for the purpose of preventing or investigating crime".
	There is no procedure stated on who should inform the person holding the information of how an assessment can be made of whether a crime will be prevented, or what "investigating" means.
	In addition, Clause 21(5) provides that the Secretary of State may by order prescribe circumstances in which the disclosure of protected information will not be an offence. Furthermore, what will be the criteria for issuing further birth certificates for those who wish to resume their original gender? Given the fact that the Bill allows for a clergyman to refuse to marry a person in his or her acquired gender, would it not be sensible to allow ministers access to original birth certificates where there is a dispute, deception or suspicion?
	I am anxious to hear what safeguards are in the Bill to prevent encroachment on religious freedom. I am sure the Government understand that some people, many people, will continue to believe that a person remains the sex designated at birth in the eyes of God, even if the law states otherwise. Those law-abiding citizens have strong beliefs. May those individuals find themselves pursued in the courts as a consequence of their unwillingness to recognise and associate with transsexuals? Would the Church be breaking the law by refusing to ordain transsexual priests?
	Can the Minister confirm that the minimum age of legal access to the transgendering process remains 18? For the Bill to be effective, the "acquired gender" of an individual must be taken to be his or her sex for the purpose of all other legislation. I understand that that is the Government's intention and I welcome the changes made to Clause 9(1) to make that more explicit. But, I would welcome reassurances from the Minister that—with particular regard to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975—the Government view the Bill as sufficiently clear in that respect and beyond possible misinterpretation.
	I am also keen to hear the Minister's reasons for rejecting the call in the Joint Committee on Human Rights report to rectify the law, which currently permits discrimination against a transsexual in the fields of education, housing and the supply of goods and services. As I understand it, the committee heard significant amounts of evidence detailing ongoing discrimination in those fields and the Bill would seem to be the natural place to rectify that. Will automatic annulment of marriage be legally available where one of the partners is transgender? I suspect that other noble Lords will have more questions and concerns to put to the Minister. In particular, I am looking forward to hearing the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Chan, who is an eminent paediatrician; and the perspective of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester.
	In conclusion, I stress that it will not be enough for the Minister to say that we should accept the Bill because it will affect only a small number of people. The measures involve some important principles of law, so we must proceed with caution. Whatever the outcome, I believe it is equally important in all our debates on the Bill that we approach the many issues with care and compassion for those for whom the measures are intended.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, the Bill places me in two dilemmas, the first especially pressing. There can be no argument about the acute, distressing and chronic effects of gender dysphoria upon those who suffer with it; so they should clearly have the greatest possible sympathy and assistance from others—especially from the Churches. They should be free to live as fully as possible in their acquired gender confidently and without what they may experience as discrimination, let alone molestation. Indeed, some, and some of their medical advisers, assert that it is a necessity for their fullest health. Yet, and I quote Lord Reed,
	"what is possible has to be decided having regard to the interests of others (so far as they are affected) and of society as a whole (so far as it is engaged), and considering whether there are compelling reasons, in the particular context in question, for setting limits to the legal recognition of the new gender".
	With many other Christians across the whole range of the Churches, with many of other faiths and with many others, it seems that there may be such "compelling reasons" on both of Lord Reed's counts for opposing a number of the Bill's provisions including that described by the Government in the Explanatory Notes as its "fundamental proposition".
	My second dilemma has to do with the legal position in which both the Government and your Lordships' House find themselves. It appears that we are bound by the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Goodwin and by the Government's acceptance of it; yet if I may dare to say, as a layman with regard to the law, that judgment seems to leave a good deal to be desired in the quality and comprehensiveness, and so in the cogency, of its argument.
	My basic point is that nothing in the judgments of the Court of Appeal, or of your Lordships' House, in the case of Mrs Bellinger, and nothing in Goodwin—and I have re-read all three this week—seems to me to present a cogent argument that a person's sex can be changed. So I cannot agree to "for all purposes" in Clause 9(1), the Bill's "fundamental proposition", which will especially permit people to marry in their acquired, recognised, gender. Their noble and learned Lordships admit in different ways that that is to change irrevocably the fundamental character of marriage in UK law:
	"Marriage according to the law of this country is the union of one man with one woman".
	That is proclaimed by the plaque on the wall of every register office. To change fundamentally that character of marriage will have incalculable effects down all the years to come.
	If the Bill becomes law as it stands, the words "woman" and "man" will no longer have the meaning that everyone, including the law, has always assumed. Whatever their protestations the Government will have introduced marriage of two people of the same sex. And as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hobhouse, notes at paragraph 74 of the House of Lords judgment:
	"once you make this change, how do you, in a non-discriminatory way, deal with mere cohabitees or with homosexuals of the same gender?".
	Yet there is no section on page 16 of the Explanatory Notes to this Bill about its effects on marriage, arguably the most critical building block of a healthy and fruitful society; just as there is no consideration of marriage in the risk assessment section of the consultation document on civil partnerships.
	Therefore, I am grateful for the presence in the Bill of paragraph 3 of Schedule 4, which gives to those bound by law to conduct the marriages of parishioners an exemption on grounds of conscientious objection. I much appreciate all the patient contact between officials of the DCA and of its predecessors and those of the Archbishops' Council. I also appreciate the two meetings that I have been able to have with Ministers—one 14 months ago with Roman Catholic and Evangelical Alliance colleagues, and one a month ago with the noble Lord the present Minister.
	However, how will clergy of the Church in Wales or of the Church of England or anyone else, whether Roman Catholic priest, Rabbi, Imam or Baptist minister, who, on grounds of belief, cannot conduct the marriage of two people of the same sex, know the truth about the person who has approached them for marriage? Must there not be added both a requirement that a person of acquired gender, seeking to marry, discloses that fact about himself to the person whom he is asking to conduct the marriage, and a right in conscience for those other than the clergy of the Church of England and the Church in Wales to decline to conduct such a ceremony? And should not such provisions also include registrars, who do such a critically important job so well? Without such a provision, shall we see registrars threatened with dismissal on account of their beliefs, like the social workers who were not prepared to further adoptions by same-sex couples?
	Staying with the Government's responsibility to support, honour and defend marriage, I am glad to find myself agreeing with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, about Clause 5, with its requirement of divorce or annulment before a full gender recognition certificate may be issued. However, I believe that I may differ from all those in what I am about to say.
	As the Minister knows, I have seen the letter to another bishop, copied to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, from a couple who have worked through the enormous pain and upheaval in their marriage caused by the gender dysphoria of one of them. They are desperately distressed by the implications for them of that provision, and, to my knowledge, they are not the only married couple in that position.
	In the Government's mind, the provision safeguards the possibility of creating a same-sex marriage. The Minister has already laid that out. However, to me, that is already the effect of the Bill. But I believe it also follows that that is not the effect of honouring such a couple's commitment to their marriage because the sex of the party recognised as having an acquired gender has not, in fact, been altered. Nor will it do to say, as has been said elsewhere and as the Minister said this morning, that such a couple should be permitted a fast-track entry into a civil partnership. That is not what they committed themselves to, perhaps many years earlier, and it is not the equivalent of marriage.
	There is, too, deep anxiety in the Churches and the faith communities about their human rights in matters of employment, appointment, selection for training for ordination and ordination itself and its various equivalents. I was grateful that those points were raised in outline in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. What conscientious rights and safeguards will there be for bishops and their equivalents in other Churches and other faiths—and for whole congregations in those Christian and other bodies where the whole congregation makes an appointment—where,
	"male and female created He them",
	is held to be intrinsic to the community's beliefs? That goes not only for Christians but for Jews and Muslims, too, and where ministers and others are required to exemplify the community's teaching.
	It is not enough to say that degree certificates and the like will not, under the present form of the Bill, be retrospectively altered. Some already want to see provisions of that kind added. As the Bill stands, to whom may such information be disclosed? And what about professional directories and the like—Crockford's Clerical Directory in the case of clergy—if the publisher is obligated not to include elements of the public history of the individual before she or he began to live in the acquired gender and name? What of the expectations and rights of the purchaser and user of the directory?
	In Clauses 2 and 3, the Bill is more widely drawn—I understand why—than, for example, Goodwin, which requires the recognition only of post-operative transsexual persons. How will that work out in practice in matters and places of employment, leisure or sport? And is it the Government's intention to make provision for those who may, at some later point, feel compelled to seek de-recognition, as some will?
	As we know, the Government are not seeking to legislate in these extraordinarily delicate and complex matters only on account of the distress of those who suffer this disability and who, with their supporters, understandably long and press for the fullest recognition in their acquired genders. They are doing so following the judgments, to which reference has already been made, of the Court of Appeal in 2001, of the ECHR in 2002 and of your Lordships' House this year. All three—but the last, it seems to me, largely on the basis of the second—point towards the overturning of the judgment in Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) 1970.
	The last two of the three—the ECHR and your Lordships' House—rely largely on the medical evidence given to the Court of Appeal. However, that court appears to have heard evidence only from three experts, who broadly agreed with each other, and from none who would have offered contrary expert advice. None of the three courts gives any recognition to the fact that these are still highly controversial, contested matters, as I understand it, within the medical professions.
	The judgment in Goodwin, on which the Government appear bound particularly to rely is, to me, in parts a frankly shocking read in its unjudicial one-sidedness. The court, quite unbelievably, heard no advocate for marriage as it considered—again, I quote Lord Reed—
	"whether there are compelling reasons . . . for setting limits to the legal recognition of the new gender",
	and before it decided to put much weight on what I considered to be the limp-wristed view that,
	"marriage has changed, [it] is not what it was".
	I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me, too, the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and who gave it that status. In its paragraph 100, the court places some reliance on Article 9 of the charter and on the "no doubt deliberate" difference between its wording and Article 12 of the convention.
	Others will speak in this debate and in the Bill's further stages from the standpoint of other Christian Churches, other faiths—some of us have received a very concerned briefing from a representative of the Islamic Medical Association of the UK—and of sporting and other bodies. I must, too, own that at later stages there could be different views to mine expressed from these Benches.
	I repeat my agreement that those who suffer from gender dysphoria should have the greatest possible sympathy and assistance—from the law as well as in other ways. Therefore, I deeply regret that it seems that neither the ECHR nor some of our own learned, and noble and learned, judges or the Government have grasped the significance for society of what this Bill is attempting or its profound significance for marriage and, thus, for the health of millions of individuals and our society down the years to come.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the very thoughtful and helpful contribution of the right reverend Prelate. I know that in the future we shall discuss many of the points that he has raised today.
	This has been a good week for me. For the second time this week I thank the Government for bringing forward a Bill that those of us who worked in the equality field before joining your Lordships' House have long awaited. On Monday I welcomed the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. The House was fairly unanimous in its reception. Today I welcome the Gender Recognition Bill, but I understand that it will need careful consideration by this House.
	The Bill is part of the Government's social inclusion initiative and, as has been said, among other things it provides for the updating of transsexuals' birth certificates, so paving the way for those who wish to marry in their acquired gender. The Bill has been welcomed by others, including, as one may expect, Claire McNab who is Vice President of Press For Change, the transgender pressure group which praises the Government for,
	"its commitment to British values of fairness as well as to international human rights law".
	As on domestic violence, I speak as a former trade union official who over the years has dealt with a number of cases of gender change and who has seen at first hand how that affects the individuals concerned, their families and friends and their work colleagues. Relatively speaking, there are few transsexual members of trade unions, but every member has a right to expect support and advice from his or her trade union official. After all, that is why they pay money to the union. I enjoyed assisting those members who decided to change their gender—not an easy choice. No one should underestimate the difficulties faced by people who take that decision.
	Of the members with whom I worked each had experienced a mind-numbing period of self-doubt, often from a very early age. That was usually followed by worries about the inevitability of taking decisions, including medical decisions to change their gender, and particularly about how to begin to explain to the world at large why they had taken such a momentous step. All those with whom I worked changed their gender from men to women. When they took the decision to change, each faced varying degrees of prejudice, scorn and blatant discrimination. But a great deal depends on how the news is received by those with whom they work.
	The first member who came to see me worked in an engineering company, where the employees were mostly male. He took the decision to change his gender in the summer and to use the occasion of the two-week July holiday, which in those days was relatively standard in the Midlands, to change from a male employee to a female employee and to dress accordingly. The management of the company was excellent. I went with the member to meet members of the management and when they heard their employee's reasonings, they were totally supportive. That assistance was taken as far as providing a woman's toilet in an area where none had previously existed. That is perhaps a simple matter, but an important one.
	Somewhat to my surprise and pleasure the other workers were also supportive, the management having given the lead. Of course, there was some surprise expressed and a certain wariness and wondering about such a sudden change in their workmate. But there was not the prejudice or misunderstanding that I and the transsexual member had feared.
	That story contrasts sharply with another case in which I helped a member a number of years later. In that case the management, to put it mildly, was outraged. They refused to assist the person, even threatening dismissal if the employee continued to change his gender. Because he was made to feel so uncomfortable and because he became so miserable at work, he chose to leave his workplace and to find a job elsewhere as a woman worker. He did not want the hassle and worry of challenging his employer.
	I give those examples to show the importance of taking a positive approach to transsexuality, as the Government are doing in this Bill. Many of the benefits of the Bill will be highly practical; for example, the issue of a new birth certificate will mean that the holder will not have to reveal that he or she is a transsexual, thus keeping private something that is highly personal.
	As has been indicated by speeches already, as in all Bills there will be issues—valid and important ones—that we shall need to consider in more detail in the future. But I believe that that is the strength of this House. We can and we do work together to improve Bills and I am sure that this Bill will be no exception. I am also sure that as we deliberate we shall improve the Bill and so improve the law for a group of people who have waited for this legislation for far too long.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen. I agree with every word that she has said about the Bill. I commend the Government for introducing it. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for taking much trouble to consult those whom he knew had an interest in the subject and who may have a contribution to make.
	Getting on for 20 years ago, as a fairly young Member of another place, I was approached by a group of transsexual people who became Press For Change. I assisted them at the time when they formed Press For Change. I hope that others who speak in the debate, who may be less supportive of the Bill than I, have taken the same trouble to discuss with transsexuals the issues contained in it as well as to read fully about the issues surrounding gender dysphoria.
	Not long after I first became interested in this matter and determined that it was a human rights problem—I still regard it as such—I arranged a fringe meeting on it at the Liberal Party conference. At the time the issue was on the cusp; it was translating itself from being a freaks' issue to one of curiosity. I am delighted to say that it has moved well on from being a matter of curiosity to a matter of law and rights. I hope that others will take seriously the human rights aspect.
	When I introduced this subject to the Liberal Party conference—not for the first time—my then party leader, my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood, was not well pleased with me. I recall that we attracted more publicity than his meaningful visit to a seaside telephone exchange or whatever he was doing that day. But those involved in the meeting were all glad that we were able to command a half page in the Daily Mail for the first time, highlighting some serious matters about trans-gender issues.
	Subsequently, I was once fortunate enough to come fourth in the Private Members' ballot in another place. I introduced a Bill, much shorter than the present Bill, that sought to achieve the same aims. At that time the Labour Party, then in opposition, undertook when in government to bring forward legislation. It has been a long time coming, but I make no complaint about that because we are thankful that it has arrived. I pay tribute to Dr Lynne Jones MP who has played a significant part in assisting Press For Change and other interested parties on this issue and Glenda Jackson MP and others who have been prepared to put their heads above the parapet on what has sometimes been an uncomfortable matter.
	I say to those who feel uncomfortable about this proposed legislation that we are talking about a rights issue and a medical issue. When I started my involvement in these matters people used to ask me whether it was a psychological matter, a somatic matter, a psychosomatic matter or something else, as if one could pigeon-hole gender dysphoria as akin to measles (a physical illness) on the one hand or schizophrenia (a mental illness) on the other hand. After 20 years of research into this matter and a huge amount of reading, one cannot pigeon-hole this condition in any particular way. It is a whole person, whole body condition.
	I say with great respect to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester that the issue is sometimes the result of honest mistakes by medical practitioners—and we shall hear later from a very distinguished paediatrician. Sometimes the gender of a new-born baby is far from clear. Very occasionally—and every instance matters—people have been certified—mistakenly, as it turns out—as being male or female, and the full truth of their true gender has only emerged after a number of years. If someone has been a girl—for example—for nine years and in reality he is a boy, it is extremely difficult to change at that stage. Of course his parents, his school and society do not want him to change and dramatic surgical operations are not carried out on children if they can be avoided.
	Some people have lived agonising lives until they have had the courage to address what may well have been inevitable issues throughout their lives. That is the kind of situation with which we are dealing.
	A number of my friends and acquaintances have suffered from gender dysphoria. If I were to introduce noble Lords to many of them, they would not have a clue which were the men who had been registered at birth as girls or the women who had been registered at birth as boys. There is still a great deal of unjustified knee-jerk prejudice about the issue.
	I further say to the right reverend Prelate that I recognise, as we all do in this House, his responsibility, let alone his right, to give us moral guidance. I certainly recognise his right to guide us on matters of Canon law, with which we are not concerned here, and I recognise his right to comment on matters of civil law, which we do recognise here, but we cannot in reality be choosy or picky about our international legal obligations.
	Successive governments have recognised those international legal obligations. We may hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in the debate. I respectfully remind the noble Lord, for whom I have a very great regard, that for several years he was a member of a government who repeatedly strengthened our international legal obligations, including our commitment to European Union law and European human rights law. I remind the House that the European Convention on Human Rights has been in existence since 1948—the year in which I was born—and no governments have taken steps to remove us from it; indeed, quite the opposite.
	Therefore, as regards the cases referred to by the right reverend Prelate, the reality is that they are part of our law, and we have to follow our law. They are as much part of our law as though they had been decided in the Chester Crown Court.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I thought I made it clear that I was not questioning the fact that we were bound by the cases, but the quality of that judgment by which we are bound.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, that highlights another problem. Our judges are appointed to interpret and apply our law. I say with the greatest respect to the right reverend Prelate that I do not think we dignify ourselves by saying that an issue decided by the courts is wrong because we happen to think that the judgment was not of sufficient quality.
	I also say to the right reverend Prelate, again with great respect, that he is exaggerating enormously when he predicts that there will be an "incalculable effect", as he put it. We are not the first country to introduce legislation of this kind. Other civilised countries with a higher church attendance than ours have done so. Marriage and civil order has not fallen apart. Society has continued and, indeed, transsexual people, who have been able to benefit from the changes in the law, have been left with a far better state of mind and in a far better legal status than in our own country—at least until this legislation is passed.
	Having said all that, I recognise that we must consider the legislation very carefully in Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, said. I hope that I may have the opportunity to be part of that process.
	There are a number of specific points which I seek to highlight at this stage in an effort to be helpful. The first is on the matter of pensions of older female to male transsexuals. A very small group of people have taken their cases all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. They have planned their lives on the basis that Britain will treat them as female even though they are male, so they will get their pensions, like it or not, at the age of 60. Two handfuls of people within that category is probably about the maximum order. I would ask the Government to consider their position and urge them to table an amendment to ensure that their pension rights are protected. If not, amendments will be tabled along those lines—probably simple amendments related to date of birth.
	The second matter I raise has already been mentioned in some detail in the debate; that is, the status of existing marriages. I have personal experience of this. In my own constituency—although it was not known to me when I started my interest in this subject—there is a couple, a farmer and his wife. One member of the couple went through full gender reassignment. They remained a loving couple with children. The pain of an enforced divorce will be considerable for such couples. We ask the Government to consider extremely carefully the translation—if that is what is to occur—between a marriage and a civil partnership, in order to ensure that there is minimal pain and, indeed, minimal cost for these couples. Far be it for me to discourage anyone from paying money to lawyers. I am generally completely in favour of it, but on this occasion I do not think that it would fall into the pockets of lawyers such as myself with a moment of satisfaction. That is a practical issue. I hope the Government will be open to looking for solutions if we can find them.
	The third particular I want to make relates to sport. There has been a great deal of publicity, as the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said earlier this week, about problems relating to sport. I suggest to the House that if necessary we must look for a practical solution. If amendments are required, we should have amendments. However, sports have self-governing bodies which are perfectly entitled to set out their own lawful rules.
	I read some grossly exaggerated publicity this week about supposed cheating by transsexuals, who apparently in droves were going to change their gender so that they could win Wimbledon and score the winning goal in the Cup Final. For a start, it is quite hard to do either, and changing one's gender does not generally achieve it for one.
	Moreover, I have to say that it ill behoves some sports to become sanctimonious about cheating in relation to a group of people whose very honesty has been the cause of their pain. Some sports need to put their own houses in order and drive out cheating before we start accusing a group of people, not one of whom in this country has ever cheated in this way.
	However, I return to what I said at the beginning, I do not want particularly to be confrontational about the issue, I just think that we must be practical and, if necessary, find a solution. We shall take up other issues in Committee, but I do not propose to weary the House with them now. I simply close by saying to the Government that I commend them on the legislation and I hope that it will make good and relatively unimpeded progress.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, even for me, it is unusual to be attacked for what I might say even before I have made a speech, but I guess that that is par for the course for the noble Lord.
	I thought that it would be as well if we understood what we were talking about, so I took the trouble to read certain definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. One was that of sex. I learnt, if I had not already guessed, that sex is defined as,
	"Either of the two divisions of organic beings distinguished as male and female respectively".
	Gender is defined as, "set or class", but there is another definition in paragraph 1(a):
	"In modern (esp. feminist) use a euphemism for the sex of a human being often intended to emphasise the social and cultural as opposed to the biological distinctions between the sexes".
	I noticed that in introducing the Bill, the Minister scarcely used the word "sex"—I think he used it two or three times. He concentrated on the word "gender", and I can well understand why. I checked to ensure that my understanding of dysphoria was correct and found it defined as a,
	"malaise or discomfort, a state or condition marked by feelings of unease or (mental) discomfort".
	We should bear those definitions in mind.
	By the way, and before I forget, when my noble friend Lady Buscombe said that we on these Benches welcome the Bill, she did not speak for me or for a number of others.

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, perhaps I may make clear that I said that we support the Bill in principle, but have a good number of problems with it.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I do not support the Bill in principle, in any way, up hill or down dale. This is a bad Bill. It is a most offensive Bill. It is certainly offensive to the followers of more than one religion, but I do not intend to make those criticisms today. In the speech of the right reverend Prelate, we heard of some of his telling concerns.
	Sex cannot be changed. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. Sex is decided by the chromosomes of a human being. If we have XX chromosomes, we are women; if we have XY chromosomes, we are men. I might perhaps accept the Bill if an additional requirement for registering changes of gender were that it had been discovered that those concerned had inappropriate chromosomes for the sex in which they had been registered. That is the only way in which the Bill could avoid telling a lie. So far as I know, there is no law nor any known medical procedure that can change the sex of a human being. The Bill purports to do so. It is therefore an objectionable farce.
	Moral and constitutional issues are also involved. The Bill requires members of a gender recognition panel, on the production of certain evidence, in broad terms to certify that a person who was born a woman, lived as a woman, married as a woman and has borne children is, despite all that, entitled to be issued with a birth certificate falsely professing that she was born as a male child. That cannot be anything other than a lie. It is a lie that the state would require its servants, such as the Registrar General, to certify as a truth.
	Under this Government, we have become accustomed to a certain lack of precision and distinction between what is true and what is untrue, but this is going a long way beyond that. It is of a different order. Not only does it provide that an untruth can be made a truth, that a legitimately and properly attested document may be altered to purport something different, but it provides for the punishment of anyone who dares to speak the truth about the matter.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, properly referred to some of the problems in sport. When a six foot eight inch, 22 stone lady turns up to join the hockey club and denies that she has changed gender, who can attest to the contrary? Her birth certificate will have been altered and it will be a criminal offence for anyone to reveal that fact. Just how do we proceed in that matter? It is no good saying that we can leave it to people in the sporting associations. We cannot. That is impossible.
	Even worse, it is not quite an offence for anyone to reveal the truth about the matter because, properly, under Clause 21, the Secretary of State or Scottish Minister is to have by order power to make provisions prescribing circumstances in which disclosure of the truth would not be an offence. We have read in the papers during the past day or two some of the background to the Soham murders and about the real difficulty caused by the clash between data confidentiality and the need of the police to be able to identify people who have not been convicted of any crime.
	Let us consider the Bill in relation to that. Suppose the suspected person had changed gender. That would be difficult to track back, because he would be a different person with a different birth certificate. If this wretched legislation is passed, I hope that the Attorney-General has thought his way through that one before we have another problem on the scale of the Soham affair.
	Mind you, all that is somewhat small beer compared to the power given to the Secretary of State in Clause 22 to modify,
	"the operation of any enactment or subordinate legislation in relation to . . . persons whose gender has become the acquired gender under this Act, or . . . any description of such persons".
	So there is the potential to deal with what we may call the Soham problem but, as I said, I hope that the Attorney-General will tell us exactly how that will operate. He must have thought it through. The Bill has not suddenly emerged; it has been thought about for a long time.
	As I read it, the Bill would also purport that a marriage lawfully undertaken and consummated would be annulled where one of those false certificates had been issued in respect of one of those who had been lawfully joined together in an indissoluble union in the presence of God. We have heard the right reverend Prelate's reservations about that. I wonder what His Holiness the Pope thinks about it.
	Clause 16 provides that if an Earl re-registers himself as a woman, he fortunately does not have to become a Countess. That is a most liberal part of the Bill; for such small mercies we should be grateful. I therefore presume that if a King should undertake gender reassignment, he could rule as a woman, but he would still be a King. I must say that that would raise some curious thoughts.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend's speech is so fascinating that it has stimulated my thoughts. What happens if an Earl becomes a woman? Does his son then become the Earl?

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I really do not know. Presumably, as he would remain an Earl rather than becoming a Countess, his son would have other problems on his mind than whether he would immediately succeed to the title.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, let us hope that my noble friend is not going to do it.

Lord Tebbit: Indeed, my Lords, we hope that my noble friend's interest in the matter is not entirely personal.
	Clause 12, which can only be described as part of the script of a farce in a theatre of the absurd, states that although a woman may be certified as having been born a man, he or she—I do not know which—remains the mother of her children. What an extraordinary mess; it defies logic. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, says, it is clear that the problem, which is very real for some, is a psychological illness, not a physical one.
	One of the distressing aspects of the Bill is that it will encourage the practice of sexual mutilation in what are called sex-change operations, when it is impossible to change the sex of a human being, unless one has discovered a way to change his or her chromosomes. The Bill is so bad that it should be taken away, and the Government should think of another way to help people who suffer this acutely distressing psychological illness.

Lord Chan: My Lords, although none of us would argue against the principle of the rights of people, including transsexuals, the Bill is not a satisfactory solution. In view of the detailed and learned speeches of other noble Lords, I intend to focus mainly on the clinical diagnosis of transsexual people and the grounds on which gender recognition certificates can be issued and birth certificates altered. The freedom of third parties must be protected; that is to say, people of the gender that the transsexual has acquired and members of the transsexual's family.
	There are 5,000 transsexual people in the United Kingdom, among them more men than women. Transsexuals are also classified as having gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder. Sex-change operations were introduced in the 1930s to meet the demand for creating people of one sex who are chromosomally of the other. It has been estimated that only a proportion of transsexuals undergo surgery. Many refuse essential preparation, such as living successfully for two years as the opposite sex, and fail to keep follow-up appointments, so disqualifying themselves from surgery. In addition, among transsexual people there is a high rate of psychiatric disturbance, such as an increased rate of suicide, irrespective of surgical treatment.
	The medical profession is divided on the issue of transsexualism. The term is used to describe, and has wide international recognition as, a mental and behavioural disorder in the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases (10th edition). However, there are other classifications, such as in the United States, where the terms gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder are used, but they are also classified as behavioural disorders.
	There is no consensus among clinicians about the effectiveness of psychological treatment for transsexualism, but there is evidence that the perceived quality of life of a proportion of transsexuals may be improved by cosmetic and reconstructive surgery, according to a recent review. As the European Court suggests, surgery and prolonged hormonal treatment involve numerous and painful interventions, reflecting an extraordinary level of conviction on the part of the person with gender dysphoria.
	Transsexual people feel that they belong to one sex while their biological make-up is clearly that of the other. There is little evidence to show a genetic basis for the condition, because transsexuals have normal male or female chromosomes. Their genital organs are also normal male or female. Difficulties of diagnosis in cases of ambiguous genital organs at birth—so-called intersex syndromes—are rare. Most cases involve a chromosomal female with an enlarged clitoris due to congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a hormonal condition that is not difficult to treat. In such cases, the baby is a female, with two X chromosomes. A recent paper published this year in the Archives of Disease in Childhood on the surgical management of ambiguous genitalia, on behalf of the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons working party on the surgical management of children born with ambiguous genitalia, provides some useful information and advice. It states:
	"In view of the comparative rarity and complex issues involved in treating these children, we would unreservedly recommend their early referral to the nearest regional centre for both immediate and continuing management by a multidisciplinary team. No assignment of gender should be made prior to referral. The disciplines involved must include appropriately trained paediatric surgeons and/or paediatric urologists, neonatologists, and paediatric endocrinologists and their specialist nurses/support workers, geneticists, biochemists, psychologists, and gynaecologists".
	As the condition is so rare, it does not contribute to transsexualism.
	Male transsexuals have been reported to have more feminine brain microstructure. It is difficult to determine whether brain structure influences their behaviour, or whether brain changes have come about through long-continued behaviour. An example is that of an unusual study on London taxi drivers, who have enlargement of the part of the brain associated with navigation—that is a genuine study. Studies on enzyme and hormonal abnormalities, physical dexterity and psychological profiles of transsexuals have also been carried out, but there is little consistency between the studies; they are poorly replicable and demonstrate only minor links between sexual behaviour and the variables studied.
	The ruling of the European Court supports a situation in which personal feelings and beliefs are given precedence over verifiable medical evidence. In support of that are four reports, which I have read, of men who were labelled as transsexual or having a gender identity disorder, but who no longer feel that they are women, and, a few years later, function normally as men. That demonstrates that the condition of some transsexuals is not permanent or lifelong.
	Clause 2, on the determination of applications for a gender recognition certificate, requires two professional reports: one from a registered medical practitioner practising in the field of gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder, and another from a doctor, who need not practise in gender dysphoria, or a chartered psychologist. Other requirements are evidence that the person has lived in the acquired gender throughout a two-year period and an intention to continue to live in the required gender until death. No mention is made of undergoing reconstructive surgery of the genital organs.
	It is therefore likely that individuals applying for gender recognition certificates will continue to be men with male sexual organs. About half of male transsexuals have not undergone surgery. If they are then given gender recognition certificates classifying them as females, serious consequences would affect their partners, children and other people, including women who use public toilets. There will doubtless be more reports of outrage by women protesting against the use of their toilets by people possessing gender recognition certificates as women who have male genitalia.
	In sport, transsexual females with male chromosomes have been shown to have more muscle power than most women. The commitment of the individual wanting to have gender reassignment should surely need to be evidenced by undergoing reconstructive surgery. That requirement of surgery for gender recognition would give less committed individuals an opportunity to reconsider their position.
	Individuals with gender recognition certificates are entitled to marry. In New Zealand and Australia, post-operative transsexual people are regarded as members of their acquired sex and can marry. As has already been stated, Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 makes provision for ministers of religion to decline on grounds of conscience or religion from conducting a marriage of a transsexual person. That recognises the position of the Christian church, of Islam and of the Jewish religion that the only gender a person can have is that of their biological sex. Christian and Muslim organisations such as the Evangelical Alliance, the Christian Medical Fellowship and the Islamic Medical Association of the United Kingdom have contacted me to make their position clear with regard to the Bill. I join other noble Lords in asking the Minister how the human rights of religious groups will be upheld in the light of the Bill.
	More medical research is needed into transsexual people in order to provide them with appropriate support. The Gender Recognition Bill assumes that the condition is already a discrete and clearly agreed medical condition, which is not the case. Therefore, I fear that the Bill would infringe the rights of third parties.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, the issue before us is one of the most difficult that I have ever considered in this House. It would have been much easier for me to have been absent today or to shrug my shoulders and let the Bill take its course without expressing interest or concern. Unfortunately, on issues such as gender recognition, I can see yet another brick being torn away from the fabric of family relationships in this country. Therefore, I am putting my head above the parapet once more.
	Today, I have an additional problem. My noble friend Lady Buscombe, who is unfortunately not in her place, stated that we on these Benches broadly support this Bill. I must disassociate myself wholeheartedly and totally with that statement. I am disturbed that, although my name has been on the speakers' list for some time, I was never approached by my noble friend either to inquire about my view or to tell me that we on these Benches support the Bill. At least it shows that independence is alive and well and living on the Back Benches of Her Majesty's Opposition.
	Under this Bill, transsexual people will, according to the Government,
	"gain the legal recognition of their acquired gender".
	However, can gender be acquired? I know full well that there are people who genuinely wrestle with a very strong feeling that they are trapped in the wrong body. Those feelings can become uppermost in the mind colouring every thought and action and feeding permanently on themselves. It must be a veritable living torment.
	However, a large body of research and experience composed among others of members of the medical profession, maintains that the condition is a delusion—a fantasy. The problem is psychological, not physical. Psychologists agree about that. For decades gender dysphoria has been well known as a psychological condition. There is no evidence for changing that view, apart from a form of political correctness. My noble friend Lord Tebbit described that brilliantly. He made a textbook sound utterly clear. I am sure that these views will be challenged, but I draw your Lordships' attention to a letter in the Daily Telegraph on 15th July last year from medical professionals at the Portman Clinic. It states:
	"The experience of many psychiatrists, psychoanalysts and psychotherapists working with transsexual patients is that they are individuals who, for complex reasons, need to escape from an intolerable psychological reality into a more comfortable fantasy. By attempting to live as a member of the opposite sex, they try to avoid internal conflict, which may otherwise prove to be too distressing".
	The letter continues:
	"It is a measure of the urgency and desperation of their situation that they frequently seek surgery to make their fantasy real. By carrying out a 'sex change' operation on their bodies, they hope to eliminate the conflict in their minds".
	The very important part, according to the eight medical people, is that:
	"Unfortunately, what many patients find is that they are left with a mutilated body, but the internal conflicts remain".
	It is only fair to admit that some transsexual people who have had sex reassignment surgery do, indeed, experience some measure of comfort and relief. However, in the absence of any long-term research we only ever hear of the few really convincing and passable transsexual people who appear before the media. They are not generally typical.
	At this point, I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. He stated that the Bill was about intersex conditions. That is highly misleading. The number of truly intersex cases, globally, is minuscule. The Bill is overwhelmingly about people whose bodies are perfectly healthy and, indeed, who may be fathers. The noble Lord has confused transsexuality with intersex. The clarity of the exposition of the condition of intersex given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, was most masterly, and leaves none of us in any doubt about the way intersex can be dealt with.
	Research suggests that the majority of transsexual people experience instinctive human/societal rejection as they are pretty obvious to anyone who deals with them. Let me hasten to say at this point that I certainly do not condone any form of unfair prejudice or discrimination. I can express that no better than the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester who spoke so movingly on the issue earlier in the debate. The sad thing is that transsexual people often suffer from post-surgical expectations being dashed, still require ongoing lifetime therapy simply to cope and often lead a ghetto-like lifestyle. It should be noted that, internationally, transsexual people are beginning to request reversal procedures having realised that they made a mistake or were badly advised. What will the Bill do to consider the needs of those people?
	Transsexual people are not really trapped in the wrong body. The body is healthy and the physical appearance and chromosomes are all in agreement, which was beautifully described by the noble Lord, Lord Chan. Lobbyists to the Scottish Committee taking evidence on this Bill stated that:
	"The situation is actually very simple, given that gender dysphoria is a medical condition like any other medical condition. Unfortunately, because it relates to gender, that makes everything complicated. Currently we do not have the right to have our true gender recognised. We object to the use of the phrases such as 'sex change'. We have not undergone a sex change, we have aligned our gender to our true gender, which is the one in which we should have been born but unfortunately were not".
	This is surely wrong. At the risk of being repetitious, gender dysphoria is not a medical condition. We are born either male or female. To quote from Genesis 1: 27:
	"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them".
	Transsexual people are born with a gender that fits all known scientific criteria. Just because we have a yearning to be a boy or a girl does not make it so. It is just fantasy, reminding me how we used to pretend to be gnomes or sprites in the early days in the kindergarten sandpit. I have used the word "delusion" before—I use it again. I am sure that I am not alone in questioning whether it is right to go along with transsexual people in this delusion.
	Some people shrug their shoulders and turn away from the problem. The implications of the Bill are too serious to permit such inaction, as the delusions or fantasies of a few individuals will be imposed on many. Surely, it is better to help them gently to come to terms with reality, rather than trying to change reality to fit their delusion.
	If a person is paranoid and believes that he is being chased by secret agents, we do not hire a 24-hour bodyguard and buy them elaborate security devices. Similarly, if a person suffers from agoraphobia, we do not brick them into their home. Yet, instead of getting them all possible psychological help, surgeons trap transsexual people in their delusion by performing sex re-assignment surgery.
	The issues and problems created by the Bill not only for transsexual people but for the rest of us are very serious. During the progress of the Bill, I shall address many issues. I give notice of them today. Will the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights be followed? One issue is the inclusion in the Bill of the supply of goods and services. They do not appear to be included at the moment. If they are included, it would cause serious problems for shops, pubs, the churches and voluntary organisations. Can the Minister give me an assurance that the Bill will not be extended in that way?
	The noble Lord, Lord Chan, referred to the message that we got from Dr Majid Katme, spokesman for the Islamic Medical Association of the UK on medical ethics. In order not to prolong the debate, I will not read it out, but I think that it is required reading. It would be a good idea if I gave a copy to the Minister, who could circulate it. It is all about the issue.
	Transsexuality is seen as a privacy issue, until it comes to demanding benefits and coerced responses from the public. The important question that no one seems to care about is the rights of third parties, something that the noble Lord, Lord Chan, drew to our attention. It seems to have been completely ignored by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I shall come back to that.
	Will pubs be able to enforce bans on transsexual people, for example following public complaints on the issue of using female facilities? What will be the situation if a transgendered man competes as a woman in female sports? I shall not go further on that matter. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Moynihan will deal with it, in view of his comments in The Times yesterday. I hate to admit it, but men are usually physically stronger than we are. The whole area of women's sport could be turned upside-down.
	Will churches be able to prevent transgendered men insisting on attending the ladies' fellowship meetings and using female facilities? In that context, I realise that I have not pointed out that some 50 per cent of transsexual people never undergo sex re-assignment surgery. That issue has already been dealt with.
	Those are some of the problems that the Bill raises. I am now gently leading the House into considering the fundamental problems that the Bill raises for society as a whole, which I foreshadowed just a few moments ago. The Bill proposes to convene a gender recognition committee, which, by a single vote, can determine that a man is a woman. A man who has lived as a man for 40 years or so, has married and has fathered children can be deemed to be a woman, for legal purposes, by the committee. Surely, that is wrong. We should think about the effect on the children, the extended family of nieces, nephews or even his grandchildren. If the committee vote is split on whether he is a man or a woman, the chairman has the casting vote. Is that even believable? It is ludicrous. It could even be comic, but it is extremely serious.
	Society can be rocked by this, even though, I am told, there are only about 5,000 transsexual people in our population of 60 million. Let us not ignore the effect on the many hundreds or even thousands of people acting in an official capacity who will have to go along with the pretence. Many of them will feel that their conscience is being profoundly compromised. The Bill does not provide a conscience clause for those who have to get involved with, for example, performing and registering marriages. Under the Bill, a biological man will be able to marry a biological man. It may be obvious to a registrar that a particular couple who present themselves for marriage are of the same sex, and the registrar may believe strongly that marriage should be only between people of opposite sexes. I think that it was the right reverend Prelate who drew our attention to the fact that the definition of marriage is in every registry office in the land, saying that it is the union of people of opposite sexes.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, it would not be an issue of conscience for a registrar of marriages. He is prohibited by law from marrying two people of the same sex. Under the law, he must reject such an application.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I was going to ask whether the registrar would lose his job, if he refused to perform the ceremony. He loses either way.
	In the case of religious marriage, it could be equally difficult. Churches, alongside everyone of common sense, believe in the definition of marriage as a union between a biological man and a biological woman That, to me, is a matter of enormous spiritual and moral significance. That is a wholly personal view, but I think that others will support it.
	How can the Government abuse their position of power by creating a legal fiction allowing a biological man to marry a legal but non-biological woman, while maintaining that they support only the marriage of opposite sex couples, as the Minister said? How can we have a legal woman who is a man? How can any government create and dictate such a ridiculous and nonsensical category? It is against all reality, natural senses and scientific fact.
	It is Christians' religious conscience that forbids many from endorsing transsexualism as a valid lifestyle. Schedule 4 gives clergymen a conscience clause, saying that they are not obliged to marry transsexual people, but that is meaningless if they have no authoritative means of determining the true sex of the persons wishing to be married. Under the Bill, they have no right to see the original birth certificate. All that they would be entitled to see is the new birth certificate in the person's chosen gender, which will look exactly like a real—original, I should say—birth certificate. The situation is fraught for the clergy. We must do something to protect them in such situations. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the clergy could be sued, as happened in a case that went against the person who sued.
	We must not allow our natural sympathy for those who struggle with a serious psychological problem to blind us to the problems that the Bill will create for other people. If the Government persist in pushing through the Bill, they must make radical amendments to protect the freedom of conscience of those who simply do not believe that the law can declare a man to be a woman or a woman to be a man. It is only common sense and a basic human right for individuals to be free to believe fact rather than fiction, otherwise we are entering a dark future of coerced totalitarian-style law making.
	I have a final question for the Minister. Will the Bill be whipped? My understanding is that it was always going to be a free vote.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I start by saying that, on these Benches, we support the Bill. The difference between us in that, in my case, it happens to be true. Gender dysphoria is a condition that causes enormous distress. We believe that the Bill will go some way—by no means the whole way—towards reducing that distress and will cause no foreseeable harm.
	Views on sexual behaviour and the nature of sexuality in law have changed radically. Forty years ago, homosexual acts between consenting adults were criminal offences. It would be unthinkable for us to go back to the conditions of 40 years ago. We now have openly gay people in politics—indeed, in the Cabinet—in the professions and in many other walks of life.
	The Government are going to introduce a civil partnerships Bill to permit the registration of same-sex partnerships, which will have many of the characteristics of marriage. Until now, the laws on the position of transsexual people have lagged behind the changes that have been made in the case of homosexual people. I believe that gap is now being filled by this Bill.
	Of course, there are problems with the Bill, some of which are relatively minor. The most substantial problem relates to existing marriages. On that, I feel that the Government are being rigid. We are not suggesting that marriages should be entered into between same-sex couples. But the Government's principle does not have to be extended to the dissolution of a marriage that was validly entered into, and which both parties wish to retain in spite of the recognition of the gender change of one of them.
	Of course, we recognise that the issue of a registration certificate should be a ground for annulment should either party to the marriage wish to bring an end to that marriage. But the annulment of the marriage should not be the precondition for a grant of the full certificate.
	The Government refer to the possibility of a couple annulling their marriage and then entering into a civil partnership as a same-sex couple. But I see two problems with that. The first problem is obvious: we do not have civil partnerships and are unlikely to have them for some time to come. Secondly, it is easy to envisage circumstances where one or both parties to the marriage might want the marriage to continue in spite of the gender change to one of them, but be unwilling to enter into a new single-sex partnership. To require people to do that as a condition of renewing the partnership between those parties is unnecessary and undesirable.
	Some minor points have already been mentioned. My noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew referred to problems, which I entirely see and with which I entirely agree—in particular, the problem as regards the female to male gender change. People may make plans in expectation of receiving a retirement pension at the age of 60, but find that they are unable to draw their pension until they reach the age of 65. For those aged 50 or more at the time that the Bill comes into force, it would be reasonable to make a change to cover their situation.
	I understand and respect the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. The principle that he raised is fundamental and there is no way of reconciling it with my views or those that lie behind this Bill. One simply has to accept that there is an irreconcilable difference here.
	Of course, there are cases in which the biological sexuality of individuals is unclear. The right reverend Prelate's arguments did not consider those. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, said that these were relatively rare. A distinguished expert in reproductive science, to whom I was talking the other day on the subject, said that there are a significant number of people who are affected by ambiguous sexuality. But I accept that that cannot be said of all people who seek to change their gender. So I am afraid that the right reverend Prelate and I will simply have to disagree on the principle.
	I accept that it is proper to allow the clergy to refuse to marry transsexual people in their acquired gender. However, I believe—no doubt the Minister can reassure me—that there is nothing in the Bill which prevents a clergyman from asking a couple who present themselves for marriage as members of opposite sexes whether either of them has an acquired gender. If one party admits that or refuses to answer, obviously it would be legitimate to refuse. I certainly would not accept the extension of this principle to registrars.
	As regards sport, there is undoubtedly a difficulty. The Minister accepted that and said that it was within the powers of the sports authorities to make their own regulations to cover it. Whether that is sufficient, I do not know. I shall listen with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has to say and I will keep an open mind on that subject. Certainly, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an official from a sporting competition asking a potential competitor whether he or she has acquired a gender, if that is relevant.
	This is not an easy issue. The issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, unquestionably, are important and show that opposition to the Bill is by no means irrational. As he said, the medical profession is divided. It is well known that gender reassignment is not always successful. Ultimately, I believe that this Bill will help a group of people who suffer from a problem that is deeply painful for them and it can assist without unavoidable damage or injury to them or to other people. The injury to other people is not caused by recognition; it is caused by their involvement in a problem which may involve a dearly loved partner and which causes them great distress. Once the gender change has occurred, the fact that it is recognised by certificate is a step forward in helping people.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. At the beginning of the noble Lord's speech, he referred to the way in which we have legislated in recent years to accommodate changes in social attitudes. Does he not recognise that while there is a perfectly respectable case to be made for the law to be changed in relation to those matters, it is a very different matter when a Bill is introduced to change the law relating to a person's sex? This involves that which cannot be true; that is, a person with a double-X chromosome is not, in fact, a woman, but is a man. Does the noble Lord not understand the difference between those two types of legislation?

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, of course the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, makes a point that is a justifiable part of the argument. But our belief is that we should recognise that there is a group of people who while, biologically (chromosomally perhaps) are of one sex, are socially and in other respects—psychologically—of a different sex. In those cases, I believe that it is legitimate. It obviously is not compulsory, but it is legitimate for the Government to take the view that they should be treated in relation to the sex to which they socially belong and not to their chromosomal sex. I am not attempting to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. Of course, his argument, which he holds very firmly, is equally legitimate.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I speak today in my capacity as shadow Minister for Sport. Thus, my speech will focus on the subject of sport, which has been raised by a number of your Lordships. I believe that sport needs to secure full exemption from the Bill if competitive sport is to continue as we have known it. From the outset, I would like to say, in particular to my noble friends, that in my experience, the great advantage of Second Reading debates is the readiness of Her Majesty's Opposition to listen, to reflect and to respond. Such is the advantage of debates of high quality, as exemplified today. In my humble opinion, to listen, to reflect and to respond, we must.
	The noble Lord, Lord Chan, the right reverend Prelate and my noble friends all recognise that transsexuals go through deep personal trauma and that the condition of sexual dysphoria is serious. But as with so much of the legislation presented to Parliament over recent years, this Bill does not follow through to the consequences of the intentions laid out by the Government. On the contrary, it is a patchwork quilt of proposals, as my noble friend Lord Tebbit highlighted in the context of the interesting consequences both for inheritance and, indeed, for royal succession. However, I am pleased to note that in both of those examples, the Government have recognised the principle of exemption. I shall seek to argue why, with regard to competitive sport and sport in general in this country, there should be exemption. Amendments will be tabled at later stages to secure and protect the future of competitive sport.
	I contest today that the Bill as drafted would decimate the continuation of competitive sport. That is not because I disagree with the first principle raised by the Minister, who rightly said that anyone who is recognised under this legislation will have to satisfy all the criteria. Perhaps we have been reading different newspapers, but those I have read on the subject of sport all recognise that the criteria of this legislation would need to be satisfied by a transsexual.
	However, it is the second point made by the Minister that is of greatest concern. I do not believe that the Minister can reasonably argue that the status quo with regard to sport—namely, the continued determination of competition by governing bodies—will stay unchanged. This Bill will change fundamentally the relationship between governing bodies and sportsmen and women because its whole purpose is to give—here I quote the Minister's summary—a long-ignored minority legal rights. Armed with those legal rights the transsexual can challenge any governing body, sports club or national federation.
	If there is no need for the Bill in the first place, the consequences are such that the status quo would remain. But if, as I understand, it is the Government's full intention to give the transsexuals concerned under this legislation full legal rights, that totally changes the status quo between those individuals and the governing bodies of sport.
	The Government's position is clear: under the Bill, a trans-gender man or woman is as much a man or woman as anyone else. To prohibit them from competing in their acquired gender at any level would therefore fall foul of any number of human rights such as, for example, Article 8 covering the right to respect for private life. Cases are already in progress in which transsexual athletes are claiming that their exclusion amounts to restriction of employment. If a Bill is passed which would prohibit them from competing, that would provide a beanfeast for lawyers—a point I made earlier this week.
	Why is that? It is because Ministers, including through collective responsibility the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for sport, are seeking de facto today to redefine what constitutes "male" and "female". In sport the law has sensibly regarded male and female as determined by biological appearance, testosterone levels and chromosomes. Today, a new and overriding criterion is being proposed. As a result of the condition of sexual dysphoria, that condition is to be treated, in summary, as, "My gender is what I think it is". My view is that it is essential for the future of sport in the United Kingdom that it is specifically exempted from this legislation.
	Recognitions for a sex change under the Bill do not, as the noble Lord, Lord Chan, pointed out, require invasive surgery. The requirement is that a transsexual should be able to demonstrate to the gender recognition panel that the individual has changed their sexuality from whatever appeared on their birth certificate. This requires no necessary physical change of the person. It is, precisely, a mental change. Here I pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I do not believe that it is necessarily a whole-body experience. It can be for some, but in the context of the legislation as currently drafted, it is not necessarily an experience of the whole body. This will mean that the belief of the individual concerned is overriding in seeking recognition as a woman or, vice versa, as a man. If the gender recognition panel is convinced, the full weight of the law will support the applicant.
	Under Clause 2(1), a transsexual person may achieve full legal recognition of their acquired gender without going through any kind of physical medical procedure. The International Olympic Committee has its own definition of a woman. That definition is capable of being stretched to include post-operative transsexual people. However, that is markedly different from what the Bill would require for a transsexual to be fully recognised as a woman. Its terms leave sports governing bodies open to legal action if they attempt to exclude any transsexual athlete from competing in their acquired gender. The implications for sport are therefore manifestly serious and I say that particularly in relation to maintaining fair competition, safety issues and to the drug testing of trans-gender athletes.
	There are also many practical difficulties to be faced by sporting bodies at all levels in the absence of any defined policy on trans-gender athletes. These difficulties would not be resolved by the Bill in its present form. The only effective way satisfactorily to resolve them is for the Bill to include a precisely defined exemption for competitive sports. I am grateful to noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches for accepting the importance of giving due consideration to those amendments when they are brought forward and for considering the points made about sport and recreation at later stages of the Bill.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I wanted to be clear about the Conservative Party's view of this question. Does the noble Lord agree that someone who had previously been a man who simply wanted to go through gender reassignment so that they could compete, for example, in a woman's sport, would fail the test set out in Clause 3 and therefore would not obtain a certificate from the panel? If that is right, surely the problem he is talking about is one that is barely going to register on the Richter scale of reality.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord on his first point, but we are not talking about those people. We are talking about the category of people with the condition of sexual dysphoria; the transsexual who, as a result of changing his sex, will then have the full weight of the law when facing a governing body and, indeed, demanding that as a former man, he is now a woman recognised by the panel as a woman, and thus can compete as a woman in national and international events.
	Whether this concerns 1 million people, 100,000 or even 10,000 people, it is bad law if, as a result, someone in those circumstances can win a 100-metre race in national finals or—to be more appropriate and accurate—a 2,000-metre rowing race in the Olympics. That is the point I seek to make. If the noble Lord will allow me, it is rather like arguing, "Fortunately, we do not have too many cheats as a result of doping in this country". But surely that does not lead the noble Lord to conclude that we should not put a tremendous effort into ensuring that we do not have people cheating by using performance-enhancing drugs to improve their performance.
	I had the personal misfortune to be beaten in the 1980 Olympic Games by a fraction of a second by a crew who, post the end of the Cold War, are now seen to have all been on drugs. A silver medal came my way—I did not want the gold medal because I was beaten on the day—but the point I make is that, if it were only that one crew on drugs, it still sets an example to young people over the length and breadth of this country that cheating can win. We have to be tough and stand against that, even if the numbers are small.
	I argue simply that while I agree with the opening comment of the noble Lord, we cannot allow a situation to occur whereby, as a result of this legislation, the whole definition of "male" and "female" is thrown into relief so that sport then has to require that someone who is a transsexual in a male body, but satisfies all the conditions of the Bill, can then demand to participate in female events at the Olympic Games.
	I said that I would try to help noble Lords on the four principal areas of my concern with regard to sport. The first is fairness. Participation in competitive sport at all levels is based on an expectation of physical fairness and a level playing field. This would be severely compromised if the situation I have outlined came into being.
	The second issue concerns doping. A person competing as a woman who had a full male anatomy would fail a random drugs test due to the far higher levels of testosterone present in the male body. UK Sport has already stated that the testing of post-operative transsexuals is a minefield. Guidance from the World Anti-Doping Association has not been forthcoming. The IOC has issued no clear guidelines. The British Olympic Association has indicated that its position will be governed by what the IOC eventually decides.
	The world of sport is in turmoil over this. There is no clear answer from either the International Olympic Committee, the British Olympic Association or the governing bodies; nor, indeed, from the agency that would need to determine whether someone is competing as a man or a woman—that is, the anti-doping agency currently run by UK Sport.
	The possibility of dropping the male and female category distinction would have to be considered in favour of a high testosterone/low testosterone eligibility. This is a recipe for chaos. We gave the world the rules governing major international sports. Let us not give the world this unworkable legislation in addition.
	The third issue relates to that. Again, I should like to pick up on something that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said in his critique of some of the governing bodies of sport and, indeed, the anti-doping agency and the need to clean up sport. I agree that these issues, particularly in regard to the anti-doping agency, need to be seen against, for example, the removal of Michelle Verroken this week. I have called time and again for an independent UK anti-doping agency reporting to the Minister and accountable to Parliament. That decision can be made in an hour. It does not need further review at taxpayers' expense.
	The anti-doping agency is one of the three principal functions of UK Sport. Today UK Sport is in chaos. It continues to run an anti-doping policy while simultaneously funding many of the sports it has a duty to keep clean. The principal reason it has steered through this conflict of interests is because of the professional and respected work of Michelle Verroken. She, like myself, is tough on drugs and very concerned about the issues before the House today. She more than I sees the challenges in this critical area of policy, where without people like her competition between athletes would all too soon become competition between chemists' laboratories. She has led this country in the development of drug testing in British sport. I appointed her when I was Minister for Sport. With a record like hers over the past 15 years she does not deserve to be treated like this. Our system is not perfect and she would be the first to admit that, but some governing bodies have resisted change.
	The principal reason for the imperfections lies with the Minister who constantly washes his hands of an independent anti-doping agency reporting to him, backed, if necessary, by statutory powers. Whenever asked, he and his colleagues—and, I have to say, the Minister today—shift responsibility to governing bodies. I say to the Government that it is their responsibility. UK Sport is their responsibility; the anti-doping agency and its national and international commitments are the responsibility of the Minister for Sport. Today, they lie in shambles. How can you sack the respected head of the anti-doping agency on the eve of the Rio Ferdinand hearing without far-reaching consequences?
	The Government should come to the House and make a Statement. Yet the Minister, Richard Caborn—as with this ill-considered legislation—is nowhere to be seen. This is no isolated case. This week UK Sport also lost its chief executive, the respected Richard Callicott. UK Sport is in chaos. When Richard Caborn next leaves the offices of UK Sport, will he please turn out the lights and start taking some responsibility for this Bill and for the future of sport?

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I am very impressed with the rigour and the clarity with which he is dealing with the potential effect of the Bill upon the world of sport. But would he not agree that if the whole of the Olympic competition crashed into ruins it would not do a great deal of damage to society? Could he turn his attention just for a moment to the effects on society of the institution of marriage being brought down? That seems to me something that he should not neglect before he sits down.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I shall certainly not neglect my noble friend's latter point. I clearly agree with the implications raised by him and by other speakers in the debate. But I shall not allow my noble friend to get away with his opening remarks in regard to the world not crashing down if we lose the Olympic movement. I passionately believe—I have done so all my life and will do so forever—that excellence in sport and the culmination of widespread participation gives young, middle-aged and old people a tremendous sense of achievement. For young people it is a vehicle whereby in fair competition they can learn to live within the rules of society and the rules of the game, learn to work as a team, to keep fit, which is so essential for them, and to make sure that the benefits of sport ultimately allow them to recognise and admire heroes who set good examples within the Olympic movement. With that small personal aside, I wish the 2012 London Olympics committee every success in securing the games for London.
	Because of the interventions I have gone on for two minutes longer than I wished. With the indulgence of the House, perhaps I may swiftly refer to the point made about safety issues. In some contact sports at any level there would be serious safety concerns if pre-operative transsexual people were allowed to participate in their acquired gender.
	The issue of communal changing facilities and how to handle transsexual people—especially pre-operative transsexual people—when they have the full legal rights envisaged in the Bill demands careful consideration. The scope for causing offence is significant and genuine. However, clubs the length and breadth of the country will have a real fear of being charged with discrimination.
	There is also the matter of the cost of compliance. The Government's regulatory impact assessment dismisses the burden likely to be placed on sporting bodies by the Bill as some minor additional costs. This could not be further from the truth. Many people will be greatly concerned at the idea of themselves or their children being forced to share a changing room with a transsexual person. The cost and complexity of providing facilities suitable for all the concerned parties would place an immense burden on a small sports club as well as on local authority leisure facilities.
	There is no doubt that the process of changing gender is a challenging and extremely traumatic experience. Anything that can reasonably make the life of a transsexual person easier has my understanding and support. But competitive sport has its own unique concerns. The practical impact of the Bill would be to force sports governing bodies at all levels to allow pre-operative transsexual people to compete in their acquired gender without any surgical operation leading to a sex change. This is unacceptable and the potential consequences, both at the elite level and community levels, are disproportionate to any benefit realised by such a measure.
	The terms of the Bill are ill conceived. The complexities of the issue raised are obvious. There is much further work to be done on the Bill.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, as is not unusual in this House, some of our legislation brings out the range of interest and experience of Members, not least when we are dealing with issues that touch on faith, gender, sexuality, the law and human rights all at the same time. This will clearly be one of those Bills that will demonstrate the full range of interests.
	I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, for expressing her support in principle—I emphasise the word "principle", as she did—for this measure. We are not unused in this House to finding that Front-Bench and Back-Bench views on measures are not unanimous. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness outlined a number of areas of question and challenge. I will respond to a fair number now but, given the length of the debate, I will be writing, as is my wont, to all Members before the Bill goes into Committee, seeking to go into more detail on any points to which I cannot do justice in the amount of time available without testing your Lordships' patience. I also give an undertaking that if any Members who have taken part in this debate or others in the House wish to have further face-to-face discussions with me before the Bill goes into Committee, I shall be pleased to see them.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked about the interim certificate. What if a person wanted to stay married? I think in that situation, they would not apply for gender change. Therefore, they would not put themselves in that position.
	Concern was expressed about whether the civil partnership Bill will follow on in sufficient time to allow a translation without delay between the ending of a marriage and the registration of a civil partnership. I cannot specify exactly when the civil partnership Bill will come before the House and be enacted, but we hope it will be in this Session. If, however, there was a gap between the one piece of legislation and the other, one would expect anyone who wished to avoid making themselves subject to the legal anomaly to wait before they applied for gender recognition change as a consequence. That would be their right and their freedom of choice.
	Many human rights issues were touched on. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, talked about sporting facilities and changing facilities. For a start, most people—not all—will have had surgery. The fundamental issue is that this is already happening. There are transsexuals in our society, the vast majority of whom do not wish to draw attention to themselves or cause embarrassment to others. Therefore, whether or not the law is changed, these issues are being coped with in society as we speak.
	On the important issue of discrimination, Clause 9 makes it clear that a transsexual person would have protection under the Sex Discrimination Act as a person of the acquired sex or gender. Once recognition has been granted, they will be able to claim the rights appropriate to that gender.
	Fundamentally, however, the Gender Recognition Bill is about the legal recognition in the acquired gender and not anti-discrimination law. While the Bill amends the sex discrimination legislation in the fields of employment and vocational training, that is only to the extent necessary as a direct consequence of the provisions on recognition. The Bill does not, as a number of people said, go further than that with regard to goods and services. Some will deplore that and some will rejoice.
	On 5th November 2003, the European Commission published a draft directive on sex discrimination in the field of goods and services. Negotiations on this directive will start in the new year. The Government's view has been that as there is a European directive on this measure, we should wait for that, see how it progresses and use that as the vehicle by which we make any necessary change in respect of goods and services.
	The noble Baroness also asked about the working of the registry. The purpose of the gender recognition register is simply to create a new record from which the Registrar General may produce a new birth certificate. The birth register will be linked to the gender recognition register and a birth register entry for a person who also has an entry in the gender recognition register will be marked. This will ensure that when a person applies for a new birth certificate in their acquired gender, the Registrar General does not incorrectly issue the birth certificate in the original gender.
	The noble Baroness asked further about the age at which a person can apply for recognition. I am sure she will be glad to know that no one under the age of 18 will be able to apply for a gender recognition certificate. She also asked about how others will have access to gender history. The fundamental issue here, as has been touched on by a number of speakers, is crime or the prevention of crime. First of all, I should make the point that there is no reason to assume that there is in principle any more risk with transsexual people than with anyone else, in that respect. Nevertheless, before a person is cleared to work with children, the employer carries out background checks with the Criminal Records Bureau. We have clearly seen the importance of those checks this week. The CRB will have access to information about any offences committed by a transsexual person in their previous gender and identity. The CRB will, therefore, be able to continue its lawful function and transsexual people will not be able to evade traces made by the bureau.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I hate to delay the Minister. However, I hope that he recognises that even by changing his name, Huntley seemed to manage to dodge some of the provisions.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not prejudge the conclusions of the inquiry that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced this week, to be led by Sir Michael Bichard. However, if I am to believe what the radio said, the issue seemed to relate as much to delay by police forces in entering issues of suspicion about a person as the name change itself.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, with whom I was privileged to have a discussion on the issue—and perhaps we may have further discussions—expressed the greatest possible sympathy. I believe that he is genuine when he expresses that, as I believe many other speakers are. Where we differ is that the Government are clear that that sympathy must be turned into some action, to give effect to changing what we believe is an injustice.
	The right reverend Prelate asked important questions, as other noble Lords did, about the position of clergy, with specific reference to clergy in the Church of England or the Church of Wales. He asked how the clergy will know the truth. In fact, the clergy will have the right, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, to ask a person whether they have had a gender change recognised. The clergy will also have the right to refuse, either if the person says "Yes", or if that person refuses to answer the question. No doubt, in Committee that will be challenged further. It seems unlikely that a person who has had a gender change recognition would place themselves in the embarrassment of forcing the issue before a clergyman who, in conscience, did not wish to marry them.
	The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right about registrars. We do not intend to allow a similar exemption for registrars. Many people in their public office must undertake functions that they may not always, in every single respect, agree with. That is part of being a public office holder and being a public employee. We see no reason why a registrar who did not agree in conscience—although one would respect that—should have the liberty to inquire into and refuse to exercise his function.
	We shall undoubtedly return in Committee to the issue of the ending of marriage in detail. It is one of the most difficult and painful issues. I have set out as clearly as I can the Government's position on that matter, and we shall not change it. We shall not allow the recognition of marriage between people whose legal status is of the same sex. Although we shall return to the matter, we shall not move from that position. As to whether that is unfair to those who are now married, one of whom wishes to have gender change, it is not a full or happy answer to them but they do not have to force the issue if they do not want to. I shall say no more than that.
	The right reverend Prelate referred to the ECHR judgment. I shall not go into full detail on that, but gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition. The Chief Medical Officer recognises it and the NHS provides treatment for it. We are glad to stand by our international obligations in that respect. Moreover, we also believe that it is a wrong that needs to be recognised.

The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his replies to elements of my remarks, and I shall not name again those to which he has not replied. I look forward to the letter that he promised. However, it is important to ask what he anticipates will be the position of clergy and Ministers of other Christian traditions, and their equivalents in other faiths. Supposing they are faced with somebody with an acquired gender, quite apart from the question of disclosure, will they be actionable? Will an imam, a rabbi or a Baptist minister be actionable, should they in conscience refuse to solemnise a marriage?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, with the aim of brevity, I was keeping my answer relatively focused on Church of England clergymen. In effect, the position will be exactly the same for ministers of other faiths and religions. If they wish to inquire and, as a consequence of the information or non-information, refuse to conduct a religious rather than a civil ceremony, they will be perfectly at liberty to do so. The Bill has a measure specifically with regard to Anglican clergy because they have a legal obligation to carry out a marriage ceremony, because it is both a religious and a civil marriage at the same time. That is why we have brought the exemption into effect.
	As I indicated, the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, spoke from her experience in a way that we should keep before us when considering the Bill. We are talking about real human beings who are suffering real pain as a consequence. I know that that issue cuts both way in this argumentation. However, the issue at the heart of it is how to address the pain and the need to enable people to live their lives as they believe they have the need and the right to do.
	I am grateful for the support, knowledge and expertise on this issue of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I can well believe that I shall need that expertise before we have completed our consideration of the Bill. He pointed out that we are not alone in making this change; in fact, if anything, we are behind the times in making it. All of the 15 European Union countries except Ireland and ourselves have already legislated to allow such a process to be recognised. Before the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, comes to his feet, I should add that that does not necessarily mean that we are necessarily right in doing so. However, it should give us pause for thought about whether we are automatically wrong.
	I turn to the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The pension issue is an interesting and sharp one. Clearly, there is no issue as regards private pensions, where an inequality issue arises across the genders regardless. Clearly, given that we are going to equalise, there will also be no issue as regards state pensions from 2020; that issue arises only between now and then. I shall write in more detail on this issue as it is an important one, and, as ever, I shall copy it to the Front Benches.
	My good and noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham advises me that essentially, in practice, if we are talking about a female-to-male switch, we are talking about the loss of state pension for the years in which the person is over 60 but under 65. She advises me that such individuals can claim jobseeker's allowance or, if they do not wish to apply for work, pension credit guarantee. She believes that the effect of those will be to equalise the gap. I am sure that other noble Lords will welcome that. We shall write accordingly.
	On these and other issues, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is one of the parliamentarians for whom one has the greatest respect. However, it is almost impossible to respond satisfactorily to a debate about issues of principle. If one starts from a completely different foundation, nothing that is said will be able to change that foundation. All one can do is honestly respect that people differ and seek to engage on the practical issues as far as possible. I recognise that that will not give satisfaction. However, I do not pretend that, even if I spoke for two or three hours, I would be able to have the slightest effect on the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, or other noble Lords whom one respects in this respect.
	All I would point out is that the law is not seeking to change an individual's sex but to recognise that a change has occurred. That may be seen as a semantic point; nevertheless, we are not seeking to bring about a gender change as a consequence.
	I shall say only a few words in response to the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Chan, on the medical issues and medical evidence that we must and should consider in considerable detail in Committee. The Government have discussed the Bill with the key organisations representing the profession, including the BMA, the GMC, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the British Psychological Society. Clearly, there are elements of the medical profession that maintain that there is no convincing evidence of a physiological cause for transsexualism and that to recognise the new gender is to pander to psychological delusion, as has been argued in this debate.
	The opinion of the Chief Medical Officer is strongly that gender dysphoria is a medical condition and that treatment is available on the NHS as a consequence. A point I should mention now is that, in the Goodwin and I judgment, the European Court of Human Rights took the view that the continuing debate over the nature and aetiology of transsexualism should no longer stand in the way of transsexual people enjoying their human rights as others do. I think that that is food for thought in our debate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, also raised the question of how police or investigating authorities will know if someone changes their name. I touched on that previously but, for the avoidance of doubt, I should say that the Registrar General will be aware through the note on the register if someone has changed gender, and will be able to supply the information to the police relating to previous names. It is quite right to press that point, as it is essential that that be the case.
	I was saddened to be on the opposite side of the debate from the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I preferred it when we were on same side, I seem to recollect, in debates on smoking advertising two years or so ago. She mentioned two matters in particular. The first was that we are talking about approximately 5,000 people. One needs to have some sense of proportion, by which I do not mean that the moral issues are swept aside because we might be talking of one rather than 5 million. On the other hand, in terms of the societal effect, one has to reflect on the likely impact. She also raised the subject of the effect on children. As the Minister responsible for family justice, for my sins, I am deeply interested in that and no doubt will come back to it in Committee.
	The noble Baroness asked whether the Bill would be whipped. It is a government Bill, so the Government will whip it. She knows as well as I do the traditions of this House, and the severity of the sanctions that Front-Benchers are unable to put on their Back-Benchers when, in conscience or for other reasons, they do not always choose to follow the party line. I will say no more, as I do not want to encourage dissent from my Back-Benchers on the Bill.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support on the Bill. We have talked about existing marriages, civil partnerships and a little about clergy already, so I do not need to respond specifically to those points among the Liberal Democrats' concerns on the Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, brought an important debate to the Bill, and it was a most effective advertisement for other measures at the same time. One listened with interest to that. We have consulted pretty extensively on the matter. As he said, our position is that we do not believe that there is a problem. However, clearly the role of this House, and of Committee, is to explore whether such a belief is the case. If he would assist me, I would be most pleased to get any evidence or argumentation that he has from the sporting bodies to suggest that we should look at a problem that he does not believe has been addressed by my response to date.
	I shall not weary the House by emphasising why we think that the Bill matters. We should be legislating on the issue, irrespective of any ECHR judgment, because it is part of the response of a civilised society to recognise the differences in that society in ways that do not infringe the rights of others. Having said that, it is clear that we will have some vigorous Committee debates on the Bill. I look forward to that and to the proper probing and testing that will come as a consequence. In principle, we are clear that we should legislate, and we look forward to doing so.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Local Government Best Value (Exemption) (England) Order 2003

Lord Bassam of Brighton: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I should like to explain the background to the order. Currently, the Best Value regime applies to all parish councils other than those whose budgeted income was less than £500,000 in any of the financial years commencing in 1997, 1998 and 1999. That means that all parishes, including small ones, created after 1999 are subject to the duties of Best Value. The order will change that position by exempting all but 41 of the larger and well established parishes from the Best Value regime.
	The order will exempt all parish and town councils, except those whose budgeted income was above £500,000 in each of the years commencing 1997, 1998 and 1999, from the duties of Best Value as defined by the Local Government Act 1999.
	The duty of Best Value, as defined in that Act, requires authorities to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way they deliver their services, having regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness. In doing so, they must consult local people, publish Best Value performance plans, carry out reviews of their services and be subject to audit and inspection. In cases of failure, they may also be subject to the Secretary of State's powers of intervention.
	Under the Local Government Act 1999 that duty would apply to all local authorities, including all 8,700 or so parish councils. The size of those parish councils varies considerably. Some are large, with budgets of over half a million pounds. Others are very small—no more than a part-time clerk supporting a few councillors. The requirements of Best Value would have been quite onerous for the smaller town and parish councils. They would find it unnecessarily burdensome to be required to prepare and publish Best Value performance plans and to review their functions. No doubt, some may feel threatened by the prospect of Best Value inspections and in a worse case scenario, they could be subject to intervention. The Government recognised that it was not right to burden those small town and parish councils with the duty of Best Value, nor would it have been cost effective.
	Therefore, the Government issued the Local Government Best Value (Exemption) (England) Order 2000 to exempt those councils whose budgeted income was less than £500,000 in any of the financial years to which I have referred. That resulted in only the largest 41 town and parish councils becoming subject to the duty of Best Value. They are key local players with sizeable incomes. Typically, they run community centres and markets; they operate "one-stop" shops, providing local information; and work in partnership with others in a variety of ways to meet the needs of their community. It is right that they should follow Best Value principles. For those bodies we have streamlined the Best Value framework as far as possible to reduce the burden on them.
	However, the Local Government Best Value (Exemption) (England) Order 2000 did not exempt parish councils which were created after the order was made. To date, around 100 such parish councils have been created, most are very small. It was not the Government's intention that such councils should be subject to the duty of Best Value. The draft order therefore proposes to revoke the current order and replace it with one which secures the exemption of all parish councils from the duty of Best Value, except those with budgeted income over £500,000 in the financial years to which I have referred. It will also exempt any parish and town council that may be created in the future.
	I can reassure noble Lords that the proposed order will not change the position of the current Best Value town and parish councils. We wish them to continue to build on the excellent progress that they have made to date in implementing the principles of Best Value. I particularly acknowledge their contribution in enhancing the quality of life for the communities they serve.
	The order does not change the position of the majority of parish councils. The smaller ones that were in existence before 1999 are exempt from the duties of Best Value and will remain so. The order will clarify the position of those town and parish councils created since April 2000 and any that may be created in the future. The Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in the other place considered the order on 8th December and has confirmed that it is content. I commend the order to this House.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. These Benches support the move. I thought that there were nearly 10,000 parish councils, but the Minister said that there were 8,700. Whichever figure is right, there are a large number of parish councils across the country, representing more than 16 million people. They are the oldest structure of government in our country and are vital to the health of our local democracy.
	Four of the seven quality parishes—a new classification—are in my county of Essex. I am delighted that my county has such a strong record of parish government, and the county council which I lead is committed to serving our parish councils.
	As the Minister said, the effect of the order will be to remove certain Best Value obligations from parish councils which fall within the Best Value regime. There are 41 such councils and I am sure that they will welcome this loosening of the grip of Whitehall on their functions. Indeed, many authorities—not only parish councils—would welcome such derogation.
	I was pleased to hear what the Minister said because I was intending to ask about parish councils which will be created in the future. I believe that he has clarified the future situation and I am grateful for that. Obviously, I hope that in the coming years many more parish councils will be created. I would encourage that, as, I am sure, we all would. Therefore, I am grateful for the Minister's clarification and do not believe that I need to ask any questions. I welcome the order and wish the Minister a merry Christmas.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I am all in favour of a merry Christmas. I support the order. It is interesting that in the other place, when referring to Best Value, the Minister said that the requirements are quite demanding. That was certainly my experience during my period of service as a municipal councillor, which ended in May. If ever a pudding was over-egged, it was the one called "Best Value". Of course, one cannot talk against best value or good value. However, in my view, what became known as the Best Value regime took over local government. It would be interesting to know whether, on balance, local government has been the better for it. Having said that, the order exempts from the regime brand new parishes with minimal powers and minimal resources. Clearly, that is right and I support the order.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as chairman of Evalue Group, which has been helping local authorities to achieve e-procurement targets. That is supposed to happen by 2005 but many will not hit the targets. I should probably mention that, although he does not know it, we have been helping some of the districts in the county of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
	I very much support this statutory instrument as it reduces much of the burden of regulation. However, it is a pity that it is limited only to parish councils with a turnover of less than £500,000. In trying to help districts, in particular, to achieve greater efficiency, we found that those concerned tended to think, "Oh God, not another initiative". They not only have to deal with best value; they now also have comprehensive performance assessments and many other things, too.
	The main point that I want to make is that Section 4 of the Local Government Act 1999 states that best value authorities shall have regard to,
	"a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness".
	However, that is looking at the issue only from the authority's point of view. If one takes into account efficiency and effectiveness only from the authority's point of view, many SMEs in the area could be bankrupted because one is trying to consolidate procurement.
	I believe that the Act is flawed in that it does not also have regard to the impact on the local area. In some such initiatives, one can easily find that, in trying to be very efficient, at the same time, one bankrupts one's local economy and then money is pumped into a regeneration project. Therefore, I very much welcome the order. I believe that it is a move in the right direction. I only wish that it had been extended a little further by making more exemptions.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not find too many points to reply to. I believe that, for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, missed the opportunity of asking a question on a local government matter when at the Dispatch Box. Therefore, I suppose that I should return his good cheer for the season and congratulate him on that.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, I can only say that I believe that best value has done a great deal for district and county authorities, metropolitan authorities and London boroughs and so on. I also believe that the 41 parish town councils and one city council that fall into that category have benefited from it as well. If the House wanted me to, I could regale it with endless stories of improved efficiency and enhanced service performance achieved as a result. Such improvement has had quite a bearing, particularly on councils that have concentrated on marketing—to pick up the point about regeneration—on improving the quality of community facilities and on enhancing regeneration programmes locally, particularly where they have been undertaken in partnership.
	I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on spotting his four parish councils, on one of whose playing fields I attempted in my youth to play football and failed rather badly. I am most grateful for the words of support and warmth. I wish everyone good cheer.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government's main objective in putting forward these draft regulations is to safeguard the rights of work-seekers, the interests of hirers and employers and the needs of the private recruitment industry. We are repealing those requirements that now appear out of date and unnecessary, while also introducing new provisions, which address practices not foreseen or not adequately dealt with when the existing legislation was introduced.
	The regulations will achieve a number of objectives. They will enable us to help to ensure that agency workers acquire the rights to which they are entitled, to stamp down on abuses, to lift outdated bureaucratic burdens from agencies, to improve the reputation of reputable firms that operate in the private recruitment industry, to protect the interests of hirers, and in turn third parties to whom hirers may owe a duty of care, and to reduce recruitment costs for employers across the economy.
	The Employment Agencies Act 1973 and associated regulations, which govern the conduct of the private recruitment sector, have different definitions for employment agencies which find work for work-seekers with employers and employment businesses which employ workers themselves and then hire them out to act for and under the control of others. Where possible today I will, for ease of reference, use the term "employment agencies" to apply to both.
	The Government fully recognise the central role that the private recruitment industry has to play in the modern, flexible labour market. The industry estimates that its total annual turnover is about £23 billion, which reflects the extent to which every part of the economy now relies on the services provided by the industry. The Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 1976 are the main regulations giving effect to the 1973 Act. Since that legislation was introduced almost 30 years ago, the industry has changed dramatically. These regulations will therefore update, clarify and improve the existing regulations.
	There is a continuing need for such legislation. The DTI's Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate enforces the legislation governing the conduct of the private recruitment industry and almost 1,000 of the 10,000 enquiries that the employment agency standards helpline receives on average each year are formal complaints concerning actual or alleged breaches of the legislation by agencies.
	I turn to the specific benefits for workers in the new regulations. First, entertainment agencies will no longer be allowed to charge upfront fees before they find work for actors, models and extras. That will prevent the abuse whereby agencies in the entertainment and modelling sectors charge work-seekers a fee but then provide little or no work-finding services. Under the new regulations an agency will be able to receive a fee only out of the earnings that the work-seekers receive for work that the agency has found them. The proposed regulations will also tighten up controls on client accounts so that workers in the entertainment and modelling sectors, whose earnings are paid to their agencies, are properly protected. It will be compulsory for agents handling workers' earnings to operate proper client accounts.
	Secondly, on authenticated timesheets, employment businesses will no longer be able to withhold workers' pay purely because they cannot produce an authenticated timesheet. It is clearly not satisfactory that temporary agency workers' earnings can be withheld merely because they are unable to produce a timesheet signed by the hirer. Other groups do not have payment of their earnings made conditional on them producing such a document. However, the regulations allow an employment business to satisfy itself that the worker actually worked for the particular period covered by the timesheet.
	Thirdly, agencies will have to obtain information on any health and safety risks known to the hirer and the steps taken to prevent or control those risks. Agencies clearly have a duty of care for their work-seekers and the regulations place a responsibility on the agency for their health and safety.
	Fourthly, on temp-to-perm transfer fees, realistic limitations will be placed on provisions in contracts between employment businesses and hirers that prevent temporary workers from taking up permanent jobs with hiring companies, unless a transfer fee is paid to the employment business. Any charge that discourages hirers employing the temporary worker has the effect of limiting labour market flexibility to the disadvantage of both work-seekers and hirers.
	Fifthly, there are other transfer fees. Similar restrictions will be placed on terms in contracts that prevent temporary workers being employed by persons to whom the hirer has introduced them and on terms preventing those workers being supplied to the hirer by a different employment business.
	We are extending the coverage of these regulations to work-seekers who operate through limited company contractors (LCCs). Many LCCs are highly paid and highly skilled and do not want to be covered by the regulations. In their view, they are operating under a business-to-business contract and do not, therefore, need protections that are designed to safeguard the interests of workers. However, these work-seekers will be able to opt out of coverage by the regulations, but the regulations include protections to prevent more vulnerable workers being forced to opt out.
	The net effect of the new regulations should be to reduce recruitment costs for employers across the economy, and to make the labour market more efficient.
	Barriers to companies employing temporary workers on a permanent basis will be reduced. That will enable the hirers to employ workers they have previously engaged as temps and whom they know will be suitable. Hirers will also be given the opportunity to have the temporary worker supplied by another employment business, which may be offering a better service or more competitive rates.
	Agencies supplying individuals to work with vulnerable persons—for example, children, the sick or the elderly— will be required to carry out additional checks to ensure that the work-seekers are not unsuitable. If new information, which indicates the work-seeker's unsuitability, comes to light, the agencies will be required to withdraw that worker or inform the employer.
	This package seeks to establish a modern and forward-looking regulatory framework to ensure that the private recruitment industry has the opportunity to continue to grow and expand its role in the labour market in the future. Outdated bureaucratic provisions will be repealed. For example, there will no longer be a requirement that agencies should provide the DTI with copies of their current terms of business; or for agencies to check whether young persons have received vocational guidance before they introduce them to employers.
	All agencies will be required to check the identity of the work-seekers, to ensure that they have the necessary qualifications and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the work-seeker and the hirer are aware of any legal requirements to be satisfied to enable the work-seeker to work for that hirer.
	The regulations will help make temporary work more attractive to prospective agency workers. The various additional safeguards for temporary workers and removing barriers for temporary workers to move into permanent employment will encourage more individuals to choose to seek temporary work placements. That will enable agencies to offer a better service through wider choice and better-qualified persons to hirers.
	The proposed regulations cover a complex set of relationships. We have taken considerable care to ensure that these are the appropriate legislative measures for agencies, and also for the work-seekers and hiring companies that use their services. My department has undertaken three comprehensive consultation exercises since 1999, inviting comments on the proposed regulations. In addition, Ministers and officials undertook a series of meetings with bodies representing agencies and workers and with agencies and workers themselves to obtain more detailed information on the views expressed in those consultations.
	These regulations were amended to reflect many of the concerns expressed by the industry in those consultation exercises. The draft regulations have evolved since the first consultation exercise began in 1999. The industry's general impression of the original regulations was that they did not meet the needs of the industry. The department has endeavoured to strike a balance between the sometimes conflicting interests of all parties concerned. The success of those efforts is reflected in the encouraging comments of interested parties published since these regulations were laid last month. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these comprehensive and complex regulations. I can be brief, both because we have had such a clear explanation from the Minister and because the regulations were the subject of extensive consultation followed by almost an hour's discussion in the 2nd Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in another place. Although that sounds grand, in fact only 12 honourable Members, including the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, were present and the regulations were approved by a vote of nine to three. However, that is what we have.
	The Recruitment and Employment Confederation has been instrumental in helping the DTI to create regulations that are not damaging to the industry or the labour market—not too damaging, that is—although it hopes that we are sending strong signals to other European countries that we have a rigorous regulatory framework that protects agency workers. Despite those hopes, there are strong reservations about some aspects of the regulations, which I shall briefly mention.
	First, Regulation 10, the so-called "temp to perm" fees restriction, is incompatible with Article 6.2 of the Agency Workers Directive. Regulation 10 sets a time-limit for claiming a fee. Article 6.2 enables the agency to receive a "reasonable fee" for the loss by what is in effect the poaching of its agency worker. The time-scale is not a reasonable way to define the word "reasonable".
	I suspect that when the directive comes into effect, the present definition may be incompatible with it. We may then be faced with revised regulations. It is a pity that the Government did not anticipate the terms of the intended directive. There is no need to rush into the regulations domestically while there is still uncertainty about the directive. To change domestic regulations twice in a short space of time is not good government.
	The regulations resemble the curate's egg in that they are certainly good in parts. For example, we welcome the removal of up-front fees for actors, models and extras, who are often vulnerable and prone to be exploited by unscrupulous agencies. It is right that an agency should not be able to withhold pay from an agency worker on the excuse that an authenticated time sheet is not available.
	We certainly approve of the responsibility being placed on agencies to obtain information about health and safety. However, there may be problems with the drafting. I should be grateful if the Minister would answer my points in his reply.
	Regulation 20 states that where information comes to light that suggests that the work-seeker is not suitable for an assignment, the agency is obliged to inform the client. In the most extreme cases, the agency will be required to terminate the assignment. However, Regulation 20 seems to be at odds with Regulation 28, which states that agencies may not disclose information about work-seekers without their prior consent. There are three exceptions to that rule, but they do not cover the circumstances set out in Regulation 20. There is a danger that in meeting the requirements of Regulation 20, agencies may well find themselves in breach of Regulation 28 and therefore liable to action by the temporary worker.
	My honourable friend the Member for North West Norfolk told the committee that he thought that, as a whole, the regulations would enhance the standing of employment businesses and agencies. However, the cloud in front of that silver lining is that, as the Explanatory Memorandum concedes, the one-off administrative costs of the regulations will be £6.2 million and the costs of lost "temp to perm" business will be an annual recurring loss of between £6.1 million and £15.4 million. That is a lot of money for one industry to bear. I cannot see how that will help either the industry or the workers who seek agency work because for one reason or another they cannot engage in or do not want full-time regular permanent employment.
	However, despite those reservations, as the industry either accepts or is at least reconciled to the regulations, we certainly do not oppose them.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her points. Regulation 10 is complicated but it covers a complicated issue. I could explain that in detail, but it has already been done in another place. We believe that the order is compatible with Article 6.2 of the European directive. In any case, it would be wrong to require that the legislation be brought exactly into line with the directive, when we do not know when it will be implemented.
	The express provision of Regulation 20 on disclosing information where it becomes clear that the worker is unsuitable will prevail over Regulation 28, in the same way as the disclosure provisions in the Act prevail. That deals with the two major issues that the noble Baroness raised.
	The noble Baroness mentioned the loss of fees. That is a question of the business involved. In this context, one business's loss is another's gain. No doubt, fees will be adjusted to take account of that point. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Adjournment

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. As is traditional at this time, I shall take just a few moments of the House's time, as shall several other noble Lords, to perform the pleasant duty of thanking staff for the services that they have provided for us so efficiently throughout the year.
	By its nature, political life is unpredictable, in this House as in the other place. We appreciate the reassuring stability and calm of the Clerk of the Parliaments and his department, including all who work therein—I shall not list everyone. In the knowledge that I would say a few words, I listed all the other departments that serve us, among which are some Cinderellas as regards the mentions that they receive from time to time. In addition to the Clerk of the Parliaments' Office are other familiar departments, such as the Refreshment Department, to which I express many thanks. I am sure that the former chairman of that department, who is present, will endorse that. I thank the Parliamentary Works Services Directorate, which had the job of dealing with September sittings. I shall say no more about September sittings, other than that we dealt with them. I also thank the Library, the Computer Office and the Accountant's Office—do not ask me about computers, but I am certain that that department does a terrific job for us all. I think that I am allowed to mention the Government Whip's Office—at any rate, the front office—which works extraordinarily hard. Hansard, which manages to make all speeches including this one much better than they actually sounded, does a terrific job.
	I cannot mention Black Rod's Department without referring to the Doorkeepers. Some longstanding Members of this House still make the mistake, when they are unsure what is happening, of asking the Government Chief Whip. The Government Chief Whip asks the Doorkeepers and then relays the information back to the Member. If new Members join us in the new year, as rumours say they might, I shall advise them of that short-circuit procedure for discovering how things are going.
	It is a mistake to mention too many names, but I will mention just three people who retired during the course of the year, one of whom has given quite phenomenal service to the House. Liz Murray has been here for a staggering 35 years. Prior to that, she ran the garden rooms at Number 10. That is an unparalleled record of service, including service to six Clerks. I am sure that all the other speakers will want to join me in wishing her all the very best indeed and our superlative thanks for all those years' work.
	I also wish to mention Brigadier Alastair Clark, who cannot be here at the moment. Many of us were with him a short time ago while he was enjoying a well earned drink, as were some of the rest of us. He has also given sterling service to the House during the 10 years that he has been here. From the few comments that I exchanged with him, I am sure that he will have a very happy retirement.
	I hope that I shall be allowed one more small indulgence to mention one other name—of the person who helped me into the mysteries of Lords' procedure. I thought that I might know something about that, having come from the Commons, but I discovered that knowing about Commons procedure was nothing but a disadvantage in operating here. Mary Robertson had the responsibility of being the private secretary to my noble friend Lord Carter before me and briefly to me. She moved on to the legal profession after leaving here, so it seems inevitable that she will return to the red Benches sooner or later. As I look around from time to time, most Members here seem to be members of the legal profession. She would certainly manage the job very well.
	I conclude by doing what I promised to do—to be brief—because I know that everyone wants to go. However, the thanks that I have given to everyone are heartfelt and sincere.
	Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Lord Grocott.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I should like to associate myself both personally and on behalf of those on this side of the House in my party with the tributes that have been rightly paid by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms to all the staff who serve us so well here. It has been a very busy year and all the departments that he listed—I will not go through them all—have served us extremely well.
	I always like showing visitors round, because one sees the House in a different way. One gets used to coming here every day, but when one shows visitors around, one sees the building through their eyes. One suddenly appreciates the tremendous amount of work that goes into keeping this place so nice and into running it all so smoothly. Visitors are looked after very well by the Doorkeepers who show them into the Galleries and so forth, and they see the Clerks in action. However, there are also the people who they do not see—who clean the House for us, look after the stonework and the gilding and keep it so well—at the works department. A tremendous amount of work goes on and we really do appreciate it.
	The Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms mentioned three people in particular. Liz Murray has worked for six Clerks. I have been searching in my mind for the collective noun for Clerks of the Parliament. However, I realised that it would be in Latin, which is out of favour, quite apart from the fact that my Latin is extremely rusty, so I gave up the search. However, she has given tremendous service.
	Brigadier Clark came here after distinguished military service on the right of the line in the Royal Regiment of Artillery—I cannot help pointing out—with which I also had the honour of serving very briefly, but not in as distinguished a way as Brigadier Clark. However, as has been said, he has been here for 10 years and given us great service as well.
	I had to deal with Mary Robertson on many occasions. People define the usual channels as the Chief Whips, and sometimes the Leader of the Party and the Convenor are included. However, in her last job in the House, Mary Robertson was the usual channels in an almost more important respect than those of us speaking today. I certainly wish all three of them and everyone else who serves the House, especially those who have left our employment, the very best in their future lives, and in their retirement in the case of those who are retiring.
	I should like to wish a Happy Christmas to all the staff of the House and, for that matter, all the Members of the House. Next year will no doubt be busy, but I wish you all as happy a new year as we can possibly have.

Lord Roper: My Lords, from these Benches, I join the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in reinforcing what they have said. However, I begin by thanking them and the Convenor for the co-operation that has operated among us. In spite of having, from time to time, a slightly bumpy year, useful work goes on between offices. That enables me to pay particular tribute to Mary Robertson, who was responsible for educating the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and me in what the usual channels could and could not do. That is an important function. The private secretary to the Government Chief Whip is, effectively, private secretary to the usual channels. She or he keeps the operation going, which is extremely important and ensures that we have the House functions effectively.
	Apart from the people who work for the House, there are other people who chair and look after the committees that make sure that the House operates effectively. As the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms said, the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, has ensured for a long time that we had good catering. He has left a tough challenge for his successor, and we are grateful for all that he has done.
	I thank those who provide the framework in which we work. Obviously, first, there is the Parliament Office. Like others, I want to refer particularly to the extraordinary contribution made by Liz Murray over 35 years. She was a wonderful example of quiet efficiency—a Rolls-Royce of a secretary, if I may say so. I wish that I had ever had a secretary quite as efficient. There are the other parts of the House: the Library, Hansard, the various dimensions of Black Rod's office and, of course, Alastair Clark, who is returning to Salisbury—not too far from Larkhill. From the point of view of those of us who are responsible for accommodation, he did a very good job until now of making sure that we had enough places for our colleagues at the right time. There is also the Refreshment Department.
	I also thank the Metropolitan Police. I am pleased to see that the noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, is present, as he is so often, on this occasion. He and his colleagues have done extraordinary things in a difficult situation. I hope that he will be able to pass on to them our appreciation for all that they have done in this difficult period.
	Those people make up what I call the family of the House. We are, in a sense, a family. Such people ensure that the House is not only an efficient legislature but an extraordinarily pleasant place in which to work. Happy Christmas.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I am delighted to endorse, on behalf of all Cross-Benchers, the words of the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms and the two opposition Chief Whips, in expressing our thanks and appreciation for the excellent support that we enjoy from the staff in all departments of the House.
	There have been new working arrangements, extensive re-building of kitchen facilities, boiler replacements and many other fabric maintenance activities and expectations of regular rising at ten o'clock—observed more frequently in the breach than seems reasonable. All were part of a package of reforms to working practices that demands great tolerance and willingness at all levels. This House—indeed, this Parliament—still expects and gets service of the most devoted and loyal kind. In a society that too often seems to put self before all, the House is fortunate in the attitude and sense of duty of the staff that work here. Getting to work on time and getting home at some unprogrammed late hour is becoming harder, given less reliable public transport. I place on record heart-felt thanks and appreciation from these Benches.
	Finally, I add the warm thanks and good wishes of myself and all on these Benches, in particular, to Liz Murray, Mary Robertson and to Brigadier Alastair Clark, the Administration Officer, who has worked so assiduously behind the scenes for the good of us all. Not all of his efforts were unseen: I believe that he had much to do with the arrangements for the lying in state of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, a classic example of all that can be done so well and so appropriately by the nation. The country has been well served both in the Army and in your Lordships' House by Brigadier Clark. We wish him and his family well in his new retirement. Perhaps I may also add my thanks to those in the usual channels for their support to me as Convenor. It has been enormously helpful. On that note, Happy Christmas to one and all.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty minutes before three o'clock until Monday 5th January at half-past two o'clock.